Earlier this year, we went public with details of serious integrity issues in Australia’s carbon market, which forms part of the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). One of our main concerns is with a carbon offset method known as Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest (HIR). Our analysis suggests most of the credits issued under this method are not backed by real and additional carbon storage.

Since 2014, the centrepiece of Australia’s climate policy has been the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), a $4.5 billion fund that incentivises emissions reduction activities across the economy and forms the basis of Australia’s carbon market. Under the ERF, projects that reduce emissions receive credits that can be sold to the Australian Government and private entities that are required to, or that voluntarily choose to, offset their emissions.

Earlier this year, we went public with details of serious integrity issues with the ERF, labelling it ‘environmental and taxpayer fraud’. While a number of long-held concerns with the scheme exist, we have initially focused on the ERF’s most popular carbon credit methods: human-induced regeneration (HIR); avoided deforestation; and landfill gas. Our analysis suggests up to 80% of the carbon credits issued to projects under these methods lack integrity. That is, they do not represent real (emissions have not been reduced) or additional (the reduction would have happened anyway) abatement.

The Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) is the centre-piece of the Australian Government’s climate policy. It was first introduced in 2014 and is comprised of three main elements: a carbon offset crediting scheme, which issues Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs) to projects that abate emissions; a purchasing scheme, whereby the Clean Energy Regulator (on behalf of the Australian Government) voluntarily purchases ACCUs from eligible offset projects; and the ‘Safeguard Mechanism’, which imposes emission obligations on designated large facilities that can be met through the relinquishment of ACCUs. 

The available data provide compelling evidence that the majority of the abatement credited under the Emissions Reduction Fund’s (ERF) landfill gas methods has not been additional. It appears that in the order of two-thirds of the abatement credited under the methods would have occurred in the absence of the incentive provided by the issuance of ACCUs. The non-additional abatement credited under these methods equates to approximately 19.5 million Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs), or almost 20% of the total number of ACCUs issued under the ERF to the end of 2021. These credits are likely to have been worth more than $300 million.

The natural state doctrine suggests that under UNCLOS, maritime features must be assessed in their ‘natural state’, before any artificial intervention. While this has been applied in the context of artificial island building, it could also apply to cases of artificial augmentation of features (such as, for example, desalination activities). This article examines the appropriateness of this doctrine in the context of islands, arguing an expansive application of the doctrine is both textually unsupported and practically infeasible in light of changes brought by climate change.

This article presents a critical analysis of Australia's federal renewable energy law. Its operation as a system of tradeable renewable energy certificates is briefly explained, before an analysis of the future of the Renewable Energy Target beyond 2020 is undertaken. The implications of the Federal Government's recently abandoned National Energy Guarantee and the subsequent decision no to expand or extend the Renewable Energy Target are discussed. The article presents an international comparison which demonstrates that Australia's national support for renewable energy is unambitious in relative terms. It argues that in several respects, Australian federal renewable energy is unambitious in relative terms. It argues that in several respects, Australian federal renewable energy law must be extended to address important issues that are presently receiving little legislative or political attention.

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), as set forth in the 1993 Paris Principles, are expected to be independent bodies that promote and monitor state implementation of international human rights standards. In such a role, an individual NHRI bridges the gap between “international human rights obligations and actual enjoyment of human rights on the ground” and thereby operates as a nexus between a global human rights system and local conditions. A location at the nexus has the potential to offer opportunities to exercise powers as an intermediary on behalf of human rights in terms of enabling engagement between global and local levels. The analysis, however, draws upon the experiences of the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) to assert that there are limits for institutions at the nexus between global and local. Using a public controversy from 2016 that questioned the legitimacy of the MNHRC and threatened its existence as an NHRI, the analysis seeks to improve understanding of the risks facing NHRIs and add insight into the ways contextual politics challenge expectations for NHRIs to operate as human rights intermediaries.

On 1 February 2011, the Seabed Disputes Chamber (“the Chamber”) delivered its first Advisory Opinion. The Opinion provides useful guidance to the international community concerned with the deep seabed. First and foremost, the Chamber accomplished its task to assist the ISA with independent and impartial judicial interpretation of the Convention and related instruments. States that intend to extract valuable resources now know that they must evaluate their legal codes, administrative capacity, and their judicial enforcement mechanisms to determine where they fall short of the standards that the Chamber has identified. For most states it will be necessary to introduce new laws to provide the requisite rules, regulations and procedures. Entities seeking sponsorship will likely wish to work with these governments to develop a workable regime. Other entities, such as those interested in scientific research, other economic uses, and protection of the ocean and seabed resources, will want to assist with this process to ensure that their interests are respected and that developing states are given assistance to develop appropriate laws and enforcement capacity. Finally, the limitations and gaps in the Convention’s liability scheme have now been identified and await the international legal community’s attention.

International Law: Cases and Materials with Australian Perspectives is the authoritative textbook for Australian international law students. Written by a team of experts, it examines how international law is developed, implemented and interpreted, and features comprehensive commentary throughout. All core areas of the law are covered, with chapters on human rights, law of the sea, international environmental law and enforcement of international law. Cases and treaties are dissected to highlight the key principles, rules and distinctive learning points. This new edition has been thoroughly updated in line with recent developments in the field and includes a new chapter on the use of force, as well as expanded content on the enforcement of international law, including sanctions, law enforcement against pirates and the 2011 Libyan conflict. International Law provides clear and rigorous analysis and is an indispensable resource for law students.