Please note, due to essential maintenance online transactions will not be possible between 02:30 and 04:00 BST, on Tuesday 17th September 2019 (22:30-00:00 EDT, 17 Sep, 2019). We apologise for any inconvenience.
To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Labour and environmental law operate in silos. This is equally true in the transnational sphere, despite the 2011 endorsement of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Labour rights as human rights appear easier to grasp than environmental human rights, and the UNGPs specifically highlight the work of the ILO. Due to egregious events such as the Bangladesh Rana Plaza factory collapse, transnational governance regimes have emerged to better ensure building safety and respect for labour rights. Yet the process of production of “fast fashion” is not only a problem for workers whose health and safety are put at risk, but also for children and families who live in the vicinity of polluting factories and experience “slow death” as a result of contaminated air and water. This paper will explore how a reconceptualization of the worker as a relational being and corporeal citizen might bridge the silos.
The challenges to global order posed by rapid environmental change are increasingly recognized as defining features of our time. In this groundbreaking work, the concept of innovation is deployed to explore normative and institutional responses in international law to such environmental change by addressing two fundamental themes: first, whether law can foresee, prevent, and adapt to environmental transformations; and second, whether international legal responses to social, economic, and technological innovation can appropriately reflect the evolving needs of contemporary societies at national and international scales. Using a range of case studies, the contributions to this collection track innovation - descriptively, normatively, and as a process in and of itself - to explain international environmental law's functionality in the Anthropocene. This book should be read by anyone interested in the critical intersection of environmental and international law.
In March 2014 Amnesty International published Injustice Incorporated: Corporate Abuses and the Human Rights to Remedy. Injustice Incorporated details four case studies described by Amnesty as ‘emblematic’ for the way in which they demonstrate how ‘corporate political and financial power intertwined with specific legal obstacles … allow companies to evade accountability and deny, or severely curtail, remedy’. Injustice Incorporated concludes with recommendations for legal reform, yet does not call for a ‘binding international treaty’ as a necessary mechanism for implementation of the reforms. Instead, recommendations are focused upon measures that could be implemented through state practice, whether of legislatures or courts. Yet Amnesty, together with many other civil society groups and states of the Global South, have thrown their support behind the negotiation of a ‘binding’ treaty in the business and human rights context.
Drawing upon the case studies presented in Injustice Incorporated, this chapter will examine the treaty debate through the lens of international environmental law, with attention to the work of the International Law Commission (ILC). Amnesty highlights that the chosen case studies have in common a wide-ranging and, at most, only partially successful search for remedy and justice over many years and in many fora. Also notable, but not explicitly identified by Amnesty, is that each case study may be characterised as an example of transnational environmental harm with corporate power of a rich country externalising environmental costs to a poor one – whether, as in the first three cases, by transfer of potentially hazardous industrial technologies through foreign direct investment, or, in the fourth case, the physical transfer of hazardous waste. Thus, all involve environmental harm with associated violations of human rights. This is important as Ecuador, a key player in the push towards a binding treaty, is known for the notorious and never-ending Chevron-Ecuador oil pollution dispute – another environmental case. Moreover, Kiobel, the case that led to the decision emanating from the United States Supreme Court limiting the application of the Alien Tort Statute by US courts to cases that do not violate the ‘presumption against extraterritoriality’, may be seen as arising out of an effort to seek justice for the deaths of environmental activists voicing concerns over oil pollution on Ogoni lands in Nigeria.
We examined the association between a history of smallpox vaccination and immune activation (IA) in a population of antiretroviral therapy-naïve people living with HIV (PLHIV). A cross-sectional study was conducted in Senegal from July 2015 to March 2017. Smallpox vaccination was ascertained by the presence of smallpox vaccine scar and IA by the plasma level of β-2-microglobulin (β2m). The association was analysed using logistic regression and linear regression models. The study population comprised 101 PLHIV born before 1980 with a median age of 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 42–55); 57·4% were women. Smallpox vaccine scar was present in 65·3% and the median β2m level was 2·59 mg/l (IQR = 2·06–3·86). After adjustment, the presence of smallpox vaccine scar was not associated with a β2m level ⩾2·59 mg/l (adjusted odds ratio 0·94; 95% confidence interval 0·32–2·77). This result was confirmed by the linear regression model. Our study does not find any association between the presence of smallpox vaccine scar and the β2m level and does not support any association between a previous smallpox vaccination and HIV disease progression. In this study, IA is not a significant determinant of the reported non-targeted effect of smallpox vaccination in PLHIV.