If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

National governments that are committed to a social transition in the pursuit of climate policy face a complex legal challenge in evaluating how their legal and regulatory architectures support climate policy and in introducing new legal measures to implement their Paris Agreement commitments. This article sets out a method for appraising how fragmented national climate-relevant laws combine to create an aggregated legal and regulatory landscape that frames and governs national responses to climate change. Appraising this kind of landscape is a methodologically fraught exercise, considering that climate change can intersect with many areas of law and regulation, which are all embedded within the histories, legal doctrines and governance frameworks of particular legal systems. We propose a tripartite method for this taskidentifying 'direct' or explicit climate laws, identifying 'indirect' or implicit climate laws, and investigating legal cultures that inform and express both types of climate-related law. The article focuses on climate-related legislation in countries with lawmaking assemblies in proposing this approach, arguing that the national scale and legislative processes are both particularly significant in evaluating climate laws. This approach to climate law methodology can support both national climate planning and multilateral processes such as the Paris Agreement's global stocktake.

Climate justice is a concept with many different and competing interpretations. It has salience at intra-country, inter-country and intergenerational levels of climate politics. While inter-country climate justice has long been on the agenda of United Nations climate negotiations, the intra-country and intergenerational aspects of climate justice have assumed new prominence in many countries in recent years, as the economic consequences of mitigation became felt and transnational activism highlighted youth concerns. The diverse elements of and approaches to climate justice have this in common: realising them requires massive financial interventions and reforms. This article examines the still emerging frameworks to finance climate justice in two of the jurisdictions most important to the global response to climate change: the European Union and the People’s Republic of China. The EU and China have in common that they are both on the front line of financial innovation to respond to climate change. They are utilising similar tools of systemic financial intervention in order to transition financing to climate-friendly investment, in the first case domestically, but with clear implications for global financial markets. However, the EU and China are utilising climate financing mechanisms in the context of very different prevailing perspectives on climate justice. This article interrogates the relationship between these different perspectives on climate justice and the distribution, scale and pace of climate finance. The article also observes that while the EU incorporated climate justice considerations in its economic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic with a recovery package prioritising climate action, China did not take the opportunity to foster a ‘green recovery’.

Our ability to protect and sustainably use the high seas is ultimately subject to our ability to understand this vast and remote environment. The success of an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) will depend, in part, on utilizing technology to access ocean life, to analyze it, and to implement measures for its conservation and sustainable use. Indeed, technology, broadly defined, is integral to meeting the ILBI's objectives: not just the mandate to address “capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology,” but also the sustainable use and conservation of marine genetic resources, the implementation of environmental impact assessments, and biodiversity conservation measures such as area-based management tools. To maximize marine technology deployment to protect marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, transferring technology to developing countries will be critical. Provisions for the transfer of technology, generally from developed to developing countries, are included in many international environmental agreements and declarations, but these provisions have often proven difficult to implement. Part of the difficulty is that the relevant technology is dispersed among states; universities, research institutes and other nonstate actors; and private industry. The particular challenge in crafting an ILBI is, as the European Union has identified, to avoid repeating existing provisions and instead to “focus on added value.” One opportunity for an ILBI to add value on technology transfer is to further develop a network model to facilitate marine technology transfer.