In 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia made a landmark ruling for the future of our planet. A group of youth plaintiffs came together from across Colombia to file a claim against the Colombian government and several corporations operating in Amazonia. Despite national and international law obligations, the government and corporations failed to reduce deforestation in Amazonia and emissions of greenhouse gases. These failures, which perpetuated climate change, threatened the plaintiffs’ rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food and water. In recognizing the adverse impacts of climate change, intergenerational justice and the rights of Amazonia, the Court made five mandatory injunctions against the government and corporations. This episode provides an overview of Future Generations v the Ministry of Environment & Others, including the facts, strategies and outcomes of the case. With the growing wave of climate change litigation around the globe, youth plaintiff Valentina Rozo encourages that: ‘We have to find these role models… these seven year olds who are standing in front of the President and telling him, “you know, I want to live in a world where I can drink water”’.

Many thanks to Dr. Jimena Sierra (Rosario University) and Valentina Rozo (Dejusticia) for their generous contributions to the episode; Dr. Phillip Paiement (Tilburg University), Dr. Melanie Murcott (University of Pretoria) and Dr. Emily Barritt (Kings College) for their research supervision; and Tilburg Law School and the Law Schools Global League.

This episode was produced and narrated by Joseph Orangias (Tilburg University; University of Cape Town), Valentina Gonzalez (University of the Andes), Makumya M’membe (University of Pretoria) and Pawel Guzik (Kings College).

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

We acknowledge the following audio clips were used in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: ‘Mind Lotion - Bass 1.wav’ by JoachimSchulz, https://freesound.org/s/430803/ with changes (CC BY-NC 3.0); ‘Mind Lotion - Bass 2.wav’ by JoachimSchulz, https://freesound.org/s/430802/ with changes (CC BY-NC 3.0); ‘Bird in rainforest.wav’ by Reinsamba, https://freesound.org/s/19257/ with changes (CC BY 3.0); ‘VintagePianoPad.wav’ by Vann Westfold https://freesound.org/s/34025/ with changes (CC BY-NC 3.0). Licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Throughout history, law has been reactive to scientific developments and new social movements. Could the next monumental shift be the transformation of a nonhuman animal from a mere thing with no rights to a person with legal protections? And should it? Various judicial systems indeed show increasing receptiveness to arguments maintaining that at least some animals should become the bearers of such fundamental rights as bodily liberty and bodily integrity. The movement is spurred by a growing consensus in the community of cognitive sciences that most animals including all mammals and birds possess the neurological substrates necessary to generate consciousness, as well as philosophers such as Peter Singer who have long argued that all animals have intrinsic value and that their wellbeing should be independent from homocentric needs. Most legal advocacy has been directed towards animals with higher cognitive abilities, but the main focus of this podcast is on another type of animal who probably have endured one of the worst fates of any lifeform since the advent of the agricultural revolution, namely farm animals. The welfare legislation protecting these creatures in the EU is a far cry away from granting them any rights, but we judged it important to understand what one of the world’s most comprehensive legal frameworks on animal welfare offer them. The results are unsurprisingly disappointing. The listener will also gain insight in the thoughts of the management of a slaughterhouse regarding some of the abuse cases that have emerged and brought attention to the mistreatment of animals in many abattoirs across Europe. Additionally, Pascal Durand, a member of the European Parliament shares his reflections on why the EU’s overall response to the multitude of these cases has been so weak.

Our podcast does not comprise all facets of this profound topic. However, it does present the fundamentals of a legal movement that might change the way humans interact with all life around us.

Many thanks to PH.D. Researcher Jennifer Dubrulle (Tilburg Law School), Mr. Pascal Durand and ESA Foods for their generous contributions to the episode; and Dr. Phillip Paiement and Dr. Anna Marhold for their research guidance. We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Yuval Norah Harari whose books ‘Sapiens’ and ‘Homo Deus’ have provided valuable insights on current scientific findings concerning nonhuman animal cognition.

This episode was produced and narrated by Maria Dommer Nielsen and Lilia Nguyen.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

We acknowledge the following image and audio clips were used in original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing and / or Fair Use:

‘crime scene,’ ‘the mystery,’ and ‘misconception’ by Myuu (CC BY 3.0)

'Mariage D'amoure’ performed by Toms Mucenieks

Photos: Chimp: Stefanie WIebach Pixabay; Pig: Bernhard Stärck Pixabay

In recent years, blockchain has become the new technology that everyone is talking about. In this episode, we look at the potential of the blockchain technology beyond its wide-known uses as a novel form of virtual currency, by focusing on its ability to create an innovative form of governance. Through examples such as government elections and shareholder voting, we examine the way in which blockchain can foster democratic participation, while remaining wary of its possible drawbacks.

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto introduced the blockchain to be used for the cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin. Since then, the term blockchain has remained associated by many with cryptocurrency, although the technology has many other interesting uses. This episode attempts to adopt such an alternative view and takes a closer look at the way a new self-governance system relying on algorithms arises on the decentralized blockchain network. The users of this network are interconnected and can communicate with ease, meaning that this system could be implemented in areas in need of active democratic participation, such as government elections and shareholder voting at annual general meetings. This idea is already being realized in a few places around the globe and some legal systems even promote the use of the technology. However, considerable risks are also present and decentralization may cause central authorities to lose regulatory control over the activities of individuals. Will the world remain divided on this topic or will we witness a revolution similar to the one triggered by the rise of the Internet?

Many thanks to Prof. Aaron Wright (Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University) and Dr. Anne Lafarre (Tilburg Law School) for their generous contributions to the episode and Dr. Phillip Paiement and Dr. Anna Marhold for their research guidance.

This episode was produced and narrated by Maria Belenkova.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

A special thanks to the Hindenburg podcast editing software. We acknowledge the following song was used in original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: “Dark Matter” by Podington Bear.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

What are the options for people who are forced to move due to floods, droughts, heat waves, melting ice and extreme storms? What happens when entire States, such as low-lying islands in the Pacific, lose territory due to these and other impacts of climate change? The communities most impacted are increasingly being forced to flee within and across national borders. However, they are not protected under most national immigration schemes; nor do they qualify as refugees under international law. Two countries, including Finland and Sweden, recently abolished humanitarian protection clauses that protected individuals unable to return to their countries of origin due to environmental disasters. A United States Court rejected a claim from the Native Alaskan town of Kivalina for compensation due to territory loss, which is forcing the town to relocate. While New Zealand is reportedly drafting a climate change refugee scheme, the Supreme Court denied protection and deported a Kiribati national seeking asylum due to environmental reasons. Most recently, though, two Italian courts decided to protect two people fleeing environmental disasters. In this episode, we assess the current legal framework for persons displaced and territories disappearing in the context of climate change, and call on the international community to advance legal mechanisms for mitigation and adaptation.

Many thanks to Dr. Joseph Foukona (University of the South Pacific Law School), Dr. Michael Gerrard (Columbia Law School) and Dr. Chiara Raucea (Tilburg Law School) for their generous contributions to the episode; ELSA Tilburg for organizing the climate change lecture serious; and Dr. Phillip Paiement and Dr. Anna Marhold for their research guidance.

This episode was produced and narrated by Joseph Orangias and Alec Smith.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

A special thanks to Hindenburg podcast editing software. We acknowledge the following image and audio clips were used in original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: ‘As an extremely low-lying country, surrounded by vast oceans, Kiribati is at risk from the negative effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise and storm surges,’ by Erin Magee/DFAT (CC BY 2.0); ‘Seagull on beach’ by squashy555 (CC0 1.0); ‘Find Nothing’ by Tri-Tachyon, https://soundcloud.com/tri-tachyon (CC BY 3.0); ‘Indian Ocean – distant rumble’ by sexpistols (CC BY 3.0). Licenses: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

In June 2016, the Norwegian government issued ten petroleum extraction licenses for a highly sensitive area of the Arctic Barents Sea for both Norway’s state-owned oil company, Statoil, and companies representing other developed nations from around the world. Prior to that, the 2014 revision of the Norwegian Constitution saw legislators insert Article 112 as a key constitutionally enshrined human right affording citizens enforceable rights to live in a healthy environment. But what does this mean exactly? And what duty does it place on the state in upholding such rights?

Today we bring you an episode on something we've been following closely since 2016: the ongoing case challenging the constitutionality of Norway's Arctic petroleum extraction licensing, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy of Norway, or more popularly referred to as "The People vs. Arctic Oil". And we were thrilled to be able to speak with the lead claimant in the case - Mr. Truls Gulowsen of Greenpeace.

In todays episode, we discuss why we have witnessed an increasing use of the courts as the avenue for asserting environmental rights and what it may mean for the environmental preservation debate that claims have increasingly shifted from an environmental law framing to a human rights framing. We delve into the Norwegian case to evaluate the unique challenges facing climate litigation as a new avenue for challenging environmentally deleterious decisions and the difficult position national courts face in being being asked to be the adjudicator of claims for environmental rights. Join us!

“Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long term considerations, which will safeguard this right for future generations as well. In order to safeguard their right, citizens are entitled to information on the state of the natural environment and on the effects of any encroachment on nature that is planned or carried out. The authorities of the state shall take measures for the implementation of these principles."  - Article 112, Constitution of Norway

A special thanks to Mr. Truls Gulowsen, head of Greenpeace Norway, for discussing for taking the time to speak with us on several occasions about the ongoing legal challenge he leads. If you would like to support Greenpeace in their efforts in this case, or to follow the updates as the case progresses, visit their website at www.savethearctic.org.

We would also like to thank Antje Neumann, from Tilburg's Department of European and International Law, and Dr. Benjamin Richardson, professor of environmental law and the financial sector at the University of Tasmania and recent Visiting Chair of our Global Law Programme, for their enthusiastic participation in this episode. 

This episode of Nomosphone was produced and narrated by Benjamin Wiles. Research help for todays episode was provided by fellow global law colleagues Anni Luoma and Elisa Harvilahti.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

A special thanks to Hindenburg podcast editing software. We acknowledge the following songs used in their original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: "Just Watching", “Golden Hour“, and “Blue” by Podington Bear (CC BY-NC 3.0) and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode.

On Thursday 6 April, pending a decision on extradition, a German court decided to release the ousted Catalan President Puigdemont form detention on bail of 75,000 euros. However, it was not Puigdemont's hand painted Catalan-banknote that got him off the hook. Rather, despite the initial support of the rebellion charge by German prosecutors, the German judges found the charge by the Spanish government against Puigdemont to be ‘inadmissible’ since German law stipulates that such an offence would have to include ‘violence’, which appeared to be absent in ‘the case here’. However, the remaining charge of misuse of public funds is still to be considered in the court’s extradition decision. And since Puigdemont’s release, Spain is going through great lengths to provide Germany with new proof needed to support the rebellion charge against Puidgemont.

In today’s episode, we’ll take a step back and zoom in on the recent rise of Catalonia’s independence movement. The main aim is to assess Catalonia’s chances of independence under current international law. Will Puigdemont ever fulfil his ambitions of possessing his very own Catalan-banknote? Consider this episode a walk-through of Catalonia’s claim under international law on statehood, but also under European law and domestic Spanish law. What do these bodies of law have to say about the claim? Is there any legal support to be found for the Catalan case? These are some of the questions we will be delving into.

We thank our interviewees, Professor Hans Lindahl, Professor Morag Goodwin and Guayasén Marrero González for their meaningful contribution and enthusiastic participation in this episode.

A special thanks to our supervisor Dr. Anna Marhold for guiding us through this project from the initial idea to the final editing process. 

This episode was produced by Gabriele Kuchenbecker, Natalia Moreno Belloso, and Dene Ahmad.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

We acknowledge the use of Hindenburg and Audacity podcast editing software, and the use of the following music by Lee Rosevere’s (all under Attribution 4.0 International cc license) : ‘Night Caves’, ‘Tech Toys’, ‘Quizitive’, ‘Curiosity’, ‘Under Suspicion’ (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode.).

During the Spring and Summer of 2017 we witnessed a chain of terrorism-related attacks in the United Kingdom. These events have contributed to shifting the focus and debate from events occurring abroad to those in the UK and the effectiveness of domestic counter-terrorism policy. In view of an increasing number of anti-terrorism legislative instruments across jurisdictions as well as sustained criticism as to their broad scope and intrusion into the lives of citizens, we continue our discussion of the ongoing political debate surrounding the operation of anti-terrorism law by focusing on those in the UK and by looking at what role independent review of legislation can play in the process. Arguably, with the threat from terrorism continuing to evolve and diversify, it is vital that a robust oversight exists to ensure the counter-terrorism laws are fair, necessary and proportionate.

We had the privilege to meet with Mr. David Anderson QC, who previously held the position of Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the UK - a highly unique role in Europe. Our discussion elucidates not only the critical role of the Independent Reviewer in the policy debate surrounding national security and terrorism, but also any duties of the State to ensure such legislation complies with the State's obligations towards its citizens.

We thank Mr. David Anderson QC, appointed as the UK's Independent Reviewer of terrorism legislation from 2011-2017 for his insightful contribution to this episode.

This episode was produced by Selina Holstein and Kaisa Miettinen and narrated and edited by Benjamin Wiles.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

A special thanks to Hindenburg podcast editing software. We acknowledge the following songs used in their original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: "Just Watching", “Golden Hour“ and “Blue” by Podington Bear (CC BY-NC 3.0) and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode. We also acknowledge the use of the following public broadcast footage (with original broadcast date): CNN (23 January 2010), The Telegraph (1 September 2014), BBC News (4 June 2017), and BBC News (7 June 2017).

On September 12th, ten years after the debut of the first iPhone, Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook took center stage at a meticulously rehearsed event to present the newest iPhone models. While millions of Apple users remain glued to the screens, most will actually admit that they are not yet done exploring their more than desirable, but slightly older models. Nevertheless, millions of Apple users will still choose to buy one of the newest models, consciously or subconsciously, because of Apple's masterful advertising skills and the general flair that drives the iPhone hype.

The preoccupation of modern society with the acquisition of trendy items and the newest smartphone often obscures the murkier business side behind the finished product. Not many customers actually stop to ask themselves: Where does my new smartphone come from? Where is it assembled? Very few people are aware that this remarkable piece of engineering has one of the most complicated global supply chains in the world. And even fewer know that it contains the conflict mineral cobalt – the key ingredient for making our phone’s rechargeable lithium-ion batteries work.

While this conflict mineral has made billions for tech companies like Apple and Samsung, it is also at the heart of ongoing human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), one of the poorest and most desperate regions in the world. Today, one could argue that ‘blood cobalt’ has become the new ‘blood diamond’.

In this episode we set out to investigate the legal issues surrounding accountability in the global supply chain of cobalt.

Globalization has changed the landscape of multinational corporations by expanding the operating scope and facilitating cost-saving arrangements, such as outsourcing and offshoring. This change has birthed a new type of risk in global business, namely the liability for operations of partner businesses throughout the supply chain. This risk goes hand in hand with the growing demand among consumers and shareholder activists for supply chain transparency and accountability. These stakeholders in the global market desire to invest in products or purchase goods that are in alignment with their personal preferences and ethical considerations, which involve fair labor, human rights protections, environmental sustainability and ethical sourcing.

We focused our investigation around three interviews to discuss the science behind cobalt use, the potential means of overcoming obstacles to achieve equal resource distribution and victim compensation in the DRC, and the effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on mineral extraction and conflict in the DRC.

We thank our interviewees, Ms. Elsje Opperman (former master student in particle physics at Warwick University), Mr. Emmanuel Umpula (executive director of Afrewatch DRC), and Ms. Annika van Baar (PhD candidate at the Faculty of law at VU Amsterdam) for their meaningful contribution and enthusiastic participation in this episode.

A special thanks to our supervisor Dr. Anna Marhold for guiding us through this project from the initial idea to the final editing process.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

We acknowledge the use of Hindenburg and Audacity podcast editing software, and the use of the following music: Lee Rosevere’s ‘Puzzle Pieces’, ‘Under Suspicion’, ‘Sad Marimba Planet’, ‘Curiosity’ and ‘What’s Behind the Door’, and Podington Bear’s ‘Bumble’ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode.)

There is no shortage of climate markers suggesting that we are marching towards an uncertain environmental future. In the current efforts to halt and reverse our environmental degradation, there is virtually no questioning of whether we can have sustainability in a world of global capitalism and it is inconceivable that continuing with our traditional global investment scheme will get us through the rest of this century. Ongoing deterioration of the global climate has precipitated an urgency for new, innovative means to shift towards a more sustainable scheme of our global economic markets. Legal incorporation of principles of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) into global investment mandates has been proposed as a means to fundamentally shift global investment mentality and operations towards greater environmental protection and sustainability.

We set out to evaluate if SRI can be integrated into our global scheme and how the codification of these principles within corporate and investment law may help achieve their stated goals. We focused our investigation on an area where incorporation of SRI is already underway and has shown some success, namely sovereign wealth funds. And what better investment fund to lead this charge than the largest, most extensive, and most likely to form a model for legal transplantation to other industries - the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund. Join us as we explore efforts to address what is arguably the defining challenge of our time.

We thank Dr. Beate Sjåfjell, professor of corporate law and sustainability at the University of Oslo and Dr. Benjamin Richardson, professor of environmental law and the financial sector at the University of Tasmania and Visiting Chair of our Global Law Programme for their enthusiastic participation in this episode.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

A special thanks to Hindenburg podcast editing software. We acknowledge the following songs used in their original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: "Just Watching", “Golden Hour“, "Bumble", and “Blue” by Podington Bear (CC BY-NC 3.0) and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode.

This episode of Nomosphone was inspired by the wave of elections in the US, France, UK and elsewhere this Spring. During the rallies and campaign videos in the US, we saw a number of musicians publicly distance their music from then Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Through this episode, we questioned whether there are legal consequences and potential legal recourse available to musicians when politicians make use of their music without consent. We were fortunate enough to speak to litigator Lincoln Bandlow who helped to answer our question.

Be sure to subscribe to our Soundcloud and Facebook pages to stay up to date on our most recent episodes. And if you like what we do, please leave us a review in iTunes - it really helps get the word out about Nomosphone!

A special thanks to Hindenburg podcast editing software. We acknowledge the following songs used in their original format in accordance with Creative Commons licensing: “Golden Hour“ and “Blue” by Podington Bear (CC BY-NC 3.0) and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode.