« April 22, 2007 - April 28, 2007 | Main | May 6, 2007 - May 12, 2007 »
May 4, 2007
IISD Linkages Update
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
May 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Update on Nigerian Gas Flaring Case
Latest developments in this case are set out in the press release below.
A live gas flare was let off outside the Shell HQ in The Hague today by Milieudefensie and can be seen in a 2 minute video here (well worth
watching):
http://www.milieudefensie.nl/multimedia/globalisering/actie-gasvlam-hoofdkantoor-shell-3mei2007.wmv
SHELL FAILS TO OBEY COURT ORDER TO STOP NIGERIA FLARING, AGAIN
Published 2007/05/02.
THE HAGUE (THE NETHERLANDS) / LONDON (UK), May 2, 2007 - On the day prior to oil giant Shell's quarterly earnings report (May 3), Friends of the Earth International called on the Anglo-Dutch company to immediately respect a court order to stop gas flaring in Nigeria by 30th April.
Gas flaring is a destructive practice which costs the African country about US$2.5 billion annually, while more than 66% of its population is estimated to live on less than US $1 a day.
Mr Jonah Gbemre, plaintiff in the Nigeria court case against Shell, said:
"Shell is disobeying court orders and keeps on flaring gas in my community despite an April 30 deadline. For us, time is running out.
Shell must be forced to shut down this gas flaring. It is our only hope for survival."
Nigeria has been the world's biggest gas flarer, and the practice has contributed more greenhouse gas emissions than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa combined, according to a World Bank 2002 statement.
Flaring is bad for both the environment and the people in the Niger Delta. It can lead to leukemia or asthma and premature death. It causes acid rain which acidifies lakes and streams and damages vegetation.
Reverend Nnimmo Bassey, Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, who have been supporting the case,
said:
"While Shell and its shareholders count their profits all we can count are the early graves that their toxic gas flares keep sending our people. It is morally wrong for Shell to continue with gas flaring despite a ruling that has ordered them to cease it. Shell continues not only to waste Nigeria's natural resources in this way, but is criminally wasting the lives of poor people in our communities who cannot avoid the impacts of gas flaring."
Lawyer Peter Roderick, co-Director of the Climate Justice Programme, which has also supported the case, expressed his concerns with the legal process and Shell's behaviour:
"Many disturbing aspects have emerged during the progress of the Iwherekan case. First, Shell's lawyers pull out as many delaying tactics as possible in the court, even trying to get the judge kicked off the case before it has barely started. Shell then fails to comply with the court order to stop flaring. And now, after the judge has extended the period of time for Shell to stop flaring, they ignore the order again and don't even turn up in court.
"To add to this, the fact that the judge has been removed from the case, transferred to the north of the country, and there have been problems with the court file for a second time, suggests a degree of interference in the judicial system which is unacceptable in a purported democracy acting under the rule of law."
In April 2006, after the filing of contempt of court proceedings against Shell, the company was granted a "conditional stay of execution", releasing it from the duty to comply with a court order in November 2005 to stop flaring, on three conditions. One year on, two of these conditions have not been met.
The first condition was that Shell was "allowed a period of one year . .
. to achieve a quarterly phase-by-phase stoppage of its gas flaring activities in Nigeria under the supervision of this Honourable Court '.
This time condition has now elapsed, but flaring continues. The second condition was that "a detailed phase-by-phase technical scheme of arrangement, scheduled in such a way as to achieve a total non-flaring scenario in all their on-shore flow stations by 30th April 2007" must be submitted to the court personally by Mr. Basil Omiyi, the Managing Director of Shell Nigeria, Mr Funsho Kupolokun, the Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Mr Edmund Daukoru, the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, and Chief Mrs Sena Anthony, the Company Secretary of NNPC. This has not been done.
The order had been made by Justice Nwokorie in a case brought to stop flaring in the Iwherekan community in the turbulent and oil-rich Niger delta region. The court had in November 2005 already declared the flaring to be a violation of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to life and dignity of plaintiff Mr Jonah Gbemre and the Iwherekan community in Delta State, and ordered it to stop immediately.
However, when Mr Gbemre's legal representative attended the court on 30th April 2007, he discovered that not only had no such detailed scheme been submitted, but that Justice Nwokorie had been removed from the case by having been transferred to another court district in the far-northern State of Katsina, the court file was not available, and no representatives of the company or government turned up.
This turn of events is the latest in a pattern of remarkably disrespectful behaviour by Shell, NNPC, the Nigerian government, and court staff towards the rule of law and some of the poorest people in the world. A chronology of the case, and this pattern, is set out below.[ 1 ]
More information on the gas flaring in Nigeria is contained in a report published in June 2005 by the Climate Justice Programme and Environmental Rights Action, 'Gas Flaring in Nigeria: A human rights, environmental and economic monstrosity', which is available here, in both HTML and PDF versions:
http://www.climatelaw.org/media/gas.flaring/report
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT
IN NIGERIA
Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria; Chima Williams, lawyer
Tel: +234 80 388 59477
Tel: +234 80 236 49890
Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria:
Nnimmo Bassey, Executive Director
Tel: +234 52602680 (office)
Tel: +234 8037274395 (mobile)
IN THE UK
Climate Justice Programme, Peter Roderick, co-Director
Tel: + 44 20 7388 3141
Friends of the Earth, Robin Webster
Tel: + 44 20 7566 4084
IN THE NETHERLANDS
Anne van Schaik, Milieudefensie/Friends of the Earth Netherlands
Tel: + 31 20 550 7387
IN BELGIUM
Paul de Clerck Friends of the Earth International
Tel: +32-494-380959 or email: paul@milieudefensie.nl
IN THE US
Elizabeth Bast, Friends of the Earth US
Tel: +1-202-222-0719 or ebast@foe.org
NOTE TO EDITORS:
[ 1 ]CHRONOLOGY OF THE COURT CASE, AND SHELL'S BEHAVIOUR
* 21st July 2005: Mr Gbemre is given permission to bring his case.
* 5th August 2005: Hearing adjourned by court for service of papers.
* 15th August 2005: Shell asks for an adjournment, to study the papers and make adequate response. Adjournment granted.
* 6th September 2005: Parties (except Attorney General of Nigeria) attend court for hearing, but the court does not sit.
* 16th September 2005: Shell and NNPC inform the court they want to challenge its jurisdiction, and want this question to be determined first. Justice C. V. Nwokorie determines that he wishes to give one ruling only, covering all matters, and orders Mr Gbemre's arguments to be made. Mr Gbemre's case is argued before the court, after which Shell and NNPC start their reply. Shell and NNPC then ask for an adjournment, which is granted.
* 14th October 2005: Shell and NNPC inform the court that they want a stay of proceedings, while they appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judge's decision of 16th September. Case is adjourned.
* 24th October 2005: Shell and NNPC argue, again, that they want a stay of proceedings while their appeal is heard at the Court of Appeal.
The judge, observing that this was the longest argument he had ever heard on an adjournment application, refused the adjournment and ordered Shell and NNPC to finish their reply to Mr Gbemre's case. The senior lawyer for Shell and NNPC (Chief T.J. Okpoko, SAN) then applied orally to resign from the case, which had the effect of requiring an adjournment.
* 8th November 2005: Mr Okpoko turns up again, says that his clients wish him to continue and explains that he did not formally file his resignation in writing, as required. He said that Shell and NNPC were concerned that they would not be given a fair hearing, wanted the case transferred to a different judge, and so had filed an application for an injunction to stop the judge hearing the case. The judge refused Shell and NNPC's application to have the case transferred, and ordered them to reply to Mr Gbemre's case. Mr Okpoko then asked for an adjournment on the basis that he was too tired to continue. Strong objections against further delay are made on behalf of Mr Gbemre by his lawyer (Mr. B.E.I.
Nwofor, SAN). The court ordered that as Shell and NNPC will not reply, they can be given no further time, and the court ordered the case be adjourned to 14th November 2005 for judgment.
* 14th November 2005: the Federal High Court of Nigeria:
1. held that gas flaring is a "gross violation" of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to life and dignity, which include the right to a "clean poison-free, pollution-free healthy environment";
2. ordered Shell to stop flaring in the Iwerekhan community immediately;
3. declared the gas flaring laws to be "unconstitutional, null and void"; and
4. ordered the Attorney General to meet with the Federal Executive Council to set in motion the necessary processes for new gas flaring legislation that is consistent with the constitution.
The judgment is here:
http://www.climatelaw.org/media/media/gas.flaring.suit.nov2005/ni.shell.nov05.judgment.pdf
* 16th December 2005: Flaring was still continuing 32 days after the judgment, and so contempt of court proceedings were filed against Shell and NNPC, for disobeying the order.
* 10th April 2006: The Federal High Court grants a "conditional stay of execution of this court's order stopping gas flaring in the Iwherekan community". Three conditions are attached:
1. Shell and NNPC "are allowed a period of one year from today to achieve a quarterly phase-by-phase stoppage of its gas flaring activities in Nigeria under the supervision of this Honourable Court."
2. The Managing Director of Shell Nigeria, the Group Managing Director of the NNPC, the Nigerian Petroleum Minister, and the Company Secretary of NNPC are ordered to "submit a detailed phase-by-phase technical scheme of arrangement, scheduled in such a way as to achieve a total non-flaring scenario in all their on-shore flow stations by 30th April 2007".
3. These four individuals are ordered to appear before the judge to present the same in open court on 31st May 2006. Shell and NNPC appealed the conditional stay of execution, and the conditions.
* 23rd May 2006: The Court of Appeal did not amend the order of 10th April 2006 but ordered the court not to sit on the day appointed for the personal appearances, thereby removing in effect the third condition.
* 26th September 2006: the Court of Appeal in Benin City adjourned Shell and NNPC's jurisdiction appeal, after the case had been wrongly adjourned by court staff to 10th October 2006, without any notice to the applicant or his lawyers. The leading judge said that the reason for this would be investigated.
--
--
Peter Roderick
101, Weavers Way,
UK - London, NW1 0XG
Tel: + 44 20 7388 3141
May 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Invitation to Join ASIL West
| ||||||
|
May 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 3, 2007
ILW Call for Panels
International Law Weekend
2007
Towards a New Vision of
International Law
Call for Panel
Proposals
The post-9/11 era has been one of
great contestation for international law. Scholars and practitioners debate basic questions about the content and
nature of public international law and how the political and judicial branches
of the U.S.
This simultaneity of conflict and routine occur against a complex legal, socio-political, economic, and cultural backdrop. Literature across different disciplines has attempted to grapple with the effects of globalization and the legacy of colonialism. Traditional accounts of international governance through sovereign equality have been supplemented by divergent accounts of the role of nonstate and substate actors.
Amid these uncertainties, International Law Weekend 2007 asks what it means to move towards a new vision of international law. How should scholars and practitioners engage the multiple conceptual and normative perspectives on international law? Are these contestations within international law new? How should academics, practitioners, and policymakers interact? How are generational shifts influencing this discourse? What is the role of interdisciplinary interchange? And, perhaps most important, what would progress in international law look like?
The 2007 International Law Weekend will be held October 25 to 27, 2007, at the House of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. We invite proposals for panels to discuss issues related to this theme. Panel proposals should be submitted to the conference co-chairs— Peggy McGuinness (mcguinnessm@missouri.edu), Hari Osofsky (hosofsky@uoregon.edu), Patrick Reed (pcr@customs.com), Nancy Thevenin (nthevenin@uscib.org)—by June 1, 2007. Proposals should include a title, one paragraph description of the panel’s focus, and a list of speakers. We also welcome alternative formats such as roundtables, audio-visual materials, etc.
Hari M. Osofsky
Assistant Professor
University of Oregon School of Law
1221 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1221
541-346-5797 (tel)
541-346-1564 (fax)
hosofsky@uoregon.edu
May 3, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 30, 2007
Short Course in IEL and European Law
Details on the University of Montreal's summer short course in IEL and European Law can be found at: http://www.cerium.ca/article3515.html. Please pass on to your students. wil burns
April 30, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 29, 2007
Petition to Protect Panama World Heritage Site
For Immediate Release: April 23,
2007
Contact: Peter Galvin, Center for Biological Diversity, (707)
986-7805
Petition Filed
to Protect Panama Amistad International Park
Proposed
Dams Could Devastate La
Panama Costa Rica Central America Panama Changuinola River Central
America Central America Changuinola River basin Panama
PARIS — Today the Center for
Biological Diversity and more than 30 other organizations from the United States
and Panama petitioned the World Heritage Committee to list La Amistad
International Park as a World Heritage site “In Danger” due to the planned
construction of four controversial hydroelectric dams.
La Amistad,
Spanish for “friendship,” is a World Heritage site shared by
The World Heritage Committee is part of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and is
responsible for implementing a 1972 treaty to protect natural and cultural areas
of outstanding universal value. The committee designated the Costa Rican portion
of La Amistad in 1983 and listed the park as a single World Heritage site in
1990 after
The United States-based AES Corporation is pushing forward with
plans to construct a series of hydroelectric dams in the Changuinola River basin
of Panama, putting the exceptional natural values of La Amistad at great risk.
The
“The dams, roads,
bridges and power lines slated for construction would devastate unique native
species, destroy a dynamic, free-flowing river, and open this remote jungle for
development,” said Peter Galvin, conservation director with the Center for
Biological Diversity.
La Amistad supports more than 215 species of
mammals, 600 species of birds, 115 species of fish, and 250 species of reptiles
and amphibians. It also contains one of the highest levels of endemism in
The dams have been
promoted as a way to offset greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, but a
growing body of scientific evidence shows that dams and reservoirs —
particularly those in the tropics — actually increase rather than decrease
greenhouse gas emissions because they create a significant amount of methane.
Once La Amistad is listed as “In Danger,” the World Heritage Committee
and
“We must act now to protect La Amistad or else risk
losing this international treasure,” said Ezekiel Miranda, an environmental
leader who lives near La Amistad.
Both Spanish and English versions of
the La Amistad World Heritage “In Danger” petition are available:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/international/pdfs/La-Amistad-Petition-042307-english.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/international/pdfs/La-Amistad-Petition-042307-espanol.pdf
The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit
conservation organization with more than 35,000 members dedicated to the
protection of endangered species and wild places.
www.biologicaldiversity.org
------------------------------
Erica Jayne Thorson
Staff Attorney & Clinical Professor
International Environmental Law
Project
Lewis &
Clark Law School
10015 SW Terwilliger
Blvd.
Portland , OR 97219 USA
TEL: +1.503.768.6715
FX: +1.503.768.6642
E-mail: ejt@lclark.edu
law.lclark.edu/org/ielp
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=591439
April 29, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
