The Nuremberg Trials covered the grossest crimes against natural law and human sensibilities. In other words, crimes against nature.
A version of justice was adopted that called for cooperation between nations. To an extent the Nuremberg Trials gave us hope that this kind of justice could be achieved
The Trials, which required cooperation between states, were as much about serving as a model of justice for a future International Court as they were seeking a remedy for past crimes.
Unfortunately, while the Nuremberg Trials contributed to the importance of international courts in highlighting justice, the Trials did not enlighten the establishment of a court of law that might more effectively serve as a rule of law among nations.
Instead, nations mainly address environmental issues through treaties and agreements. While important, too many of those agreements are soft agreements that lack the power to provide effective implementation and remedies by speaking back to more powerful interests.
Legal remedies are (1) typically administered by geographically-bounded politicized governmental systems and (2) ultimately decided by the marketplace.
Countries can agree in principle, but be less than sincere in their actions. They might balk over any serious legal commitment to a centralized authority that is a potential threat to their national autonomy.
Nongovernmental 0rganizations (NGOs) are critical players in bringing to light and managing legal issues. However, while essential to indigenous interests, NGOs cannot survive the changing players associated with governments and corporate interests.
Lately, some scholars have return to the study of the Nuremberg Trials and reviewed the purpose of the trials, This is primarily because of a growing recognition that more effective global cooperation with a legal framework is needed that also addresses the relationship between the environment and human rights as a subject of criminality, implementation, enforcement, and remedy.
It is important to revisit the vision behind the Trials because the present and the future that we share globally is characterized by unparalleled major stressors that are not going to go away. For instance, a vision of fairness and justice is needed on a global scale as a critical factor in addressing climate change.
However, the challenge of enforcement versus soverignty remains front and center. Given this, teh question is how can principles inform a legal structure toward that end? Can an international environmental court establish some legitimacy of enforcement when needed? This Court would ideally respect national sovereignty and follow a principle of enlightened self interest, but also provide the legitimacy of enforcement.
There is widespread concern that current climate and general laws are not able to address climate change as a significant threat to humanity. There is a call for systemic integration of current international principles and laws. It might be that this could be realized effectively through a international court for the environment. However, various courts have been established in the past and failed.
Could the increasing evidence of climate change and the potential effects on humanity motivate greater cooperation between states? Cooperation is essential based on the understanding that no single group or country alone is (or should be) powerful enough, or has the standing, to prevent the continuing uncontrolled development and mismanagement of resources. No single entity can address the contributions of negative collusive actions on the part of powerful nations that has led to a significant loss of biodiversity, failing food systems, the environmental effects of wars and conflicts, widespread pollutants and numerous public health issues. No group alone can judge criminality or provide a remedy.
It can be argued that there is a new global consciousness that environmental problems cannot be solved by the marketplace. Rather, they must be decided within the realm of law. Problems include water shortages, poor energy use, diminished or unfair food systems, public health as overarching risks associated with climate change which affect all nations.
There is a growing awareness that given the above conditions regions and nations need to cooperate. However, the current legal regime has allowed the powerful to act with impunity. Given this, violations of agreements must have more meaningful consequences. The mechanisms and commitment to a legal framework to address that reality are not in place.
An International Environmental Court could weigh the balance more fairly by weighing unilateral actions against public good on a global scale.
There are bases for cooperation. Nations could have the same kind of interdependency that is frequently established to prevent the spread of disease. There is some understanding when it comes to public health that cooperation includes strengthening national and international governances to effectively fight global diseases through prevention.That kind of interdependency is an example of enlightened self interest.
There is no easily identifiable matrix to motivate cooperative practices toward the creation of an environmental court. However, there are cases to draw upon that present arguments beyond national self interests based perhaps on the defense of nature which have been recognized in constitutional terms by an increasing number of states or as in Oposa v. Factoran, the inheritance rights of children and the unborn.ion
Finally, ultimately there will be structural changes toward the incorporation of enforceability directed toward public and private interests. The questions are how and when.
The International Bar Association's (IBA) Climate Change Justice and Human Rights Task Force" published a 2014 report titled Achieving Justice and Human Rights in an Era of Climate Disruption,which critiqued the existing legal and institutional framework regarding climate change and its impact on human rights.The IBA task force proposed solutions to address issues related to rights on national and international levels. It stated that the establishment of a specialized environmental court, given concerns about enforcement, might be a longer-term goal. Meanwhile, other means should be considered, e.g.mobilizing existing international instruments with some enforcement power and employing an arbitral scheme that relies on the best practices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) established by treaty. The PCA could offer a model for a more permanent formal judicial institution. One issue in relation to the PCA would be less transparency for the public and so would call for some revisions to the PCA's current rules.
Environmental Law Library prepared by the ICUN Academy of Environmental Law.
What Future for International Environmental Law? Our World, United Nations University, 2010, new publication from the United Nation University (UNU) Press, entitled The Future of International Environmental Law, attempts the task of assessing the effectiveness of existing international environmental law. One issue discussed, among other issues, is treaty congestion that exhausts limited government resources.
International treaties and courts, how does it work? Read Tackling a Brave New World: A guide to the Basics of International Law, Spring 2005, Georgetown University Law Center, 2019.
The Brundtland Commission's mission was to unite countries to pursue sustainable development together. Gro Harlem Brundtland was the former Prime Minister of Norway and was chosen due to her strong background in the sciences and public health. The Brundtland Commission officially dissolved in December 1987 after releasing Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, in October 1987, a document which coined, and defined the meaning of the term "Sustainable Development"(Source Wikipedia).
In the early 1990s a combative environmental attorney named Antonio Oposa represented 43 children, Oposa v. Factoran including some of his relatives, in a class action suit to defend the archipelago's small vestige of old-growth forest from logging firms. The children's case against the country's head of Environment & National Resources was ultimately upheld by the Philippines' Supreme Court, inspiring similar suits throughout the world.
The Stockholm Declaration -The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm began a new era of global cooperation on environmental issues.
A ruling against the United States by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is an example of challenges to jurisdiction and meanings of soverignty on the part of more powerful nations, e.g. national security claims, that have relevance to environmental issues regarding climate change.
The US imposed its Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the high seas. It has saved a number of species. However, the Act was far-reaching and had significant implications for developing countries and their traders. The WTO Appellate Body claimed jurisdiction and that the manner in which the US imposed its Act constituted arbitrary and discriminatory law that did not assure due process and it imposed restrictions on trade.
In India etc v US:'Shrimp-Turtle complaintant countries claimed their own equivelant laws. The WTO Appellate Body stated that members were free to adopt their own policies aimed at protecting the environment as long as, in so doing, they fulfill their obligations and respect the rights of other Members under the WTO Agreement.
The WTO pressed the US to a engage in better multi-lateral communication and to change its administrative law procedures to ensure a fair review of the situations and concerns of the developing countries and their traders.
In the context of sea-level rise, Dave Owen, writing for the Louisiana Law Review (2012), looks at information and persuasion versus a regulatory scheme. (In the US, as of January 2025, the future of ESA is threatened due to the country's right-wing politicized environment.)