REM meaning

In this issue: Air emissions and climate change Energy efficiency and buildings Environmental information Marine Waste Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers Useful information Air emissions and climate change International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea gives advisory opinion on climate change and international law On 21 May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion concerning climate change and public international law. The ruling has drawn notable attention and sparked extensive commentary. That reaction reflects both the scarcity of ITLOS advisory opinions and the fact that this marks one of the earliest, perhaps the first, times an international (rather than regional or national) court has addressed states' duties relating to climate change. Richard Lord KC, a Barrister at Brick Court Chambers, offers a concise overview of the context to the Opinion, together with its substance and wider importance. For further detail,...

Shri Binaya Kumar Naik v Sanjay Kumar Naik and another , ARB P No 9 of 2024, High Court of Orissa What are the practical implications of this case? In practical terms, the ruling is useful as it again affirms the arbitrability of copyright disputes in India. However, it provides no detail on the factual matrix of the dispute (including the terms of the arbitration agreement), and it neither examines jurisprudential principles nor engages with, or cites, decisions of other High Courts in India on this question. That said, the Orissa HC has properly applied Vidya Drolia and Others v Durga Trading Corporation, [(2021) 2 SCC 1] (Vidya Drolia). The Supreme Court of India there emphasised the distinction between in personam and in rem proceedings (including in copyright infringement contexts), and reiterated that the arbitrability of copyright matters depends on the nature of the underlying claim—the status of being arbitrable or non-arbitrable cannot be presumed by default...

Allocation of jurisdiction within the UK under the CJJA 1982 This Practice Note explores how jurisdiction is apportioned across the UK under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982). It examines the scope of that regime and the conditions that must be satisfied for it to apply, and considers its interaction with Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) (the Regulation). It sets out the primary rule together with the departures from it, and, lastly, addresses forum non conveniens in this setting. The CJJA’s intra-UK jurisdiction framework is designed to furnish rules allocating jurisdiction inside the UK itself. Distinct rules and factors arise when assessing whether UK courts possess jurisdiction over a claim that contains an international dimension. The UK comprises four countries, yet there are only three legal jurisdictions, and CJJA 1982, s 50, describes each as ‘parts of the UK’. England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Practitioners in England engaged in cross-border disputes must be cognisant of a range...

Overview of challenges to Egyptian court jurisdiction This Practice Note outlines the legal bases for contesting the jurisdiction of Egyptian courts. Jurisdiction is set by Articles 28–35 of the Law of Civil and Commercial Procedures (the 'LCCP'). These provisions determine when those courts may hear a dispute. The organising principle is territorial: the default forum is tied to the defendant’s domicile or residence, and courts apply the internationally recognised rule accordingly, save for in rem disputes involving interests in property. In rem jurisdiction: where the claim concerns a property, proceedings must be brought before the court whose geographical area covers the location of that property, as this is the court empowered to seize and hold it for legal purposes. Consequently, Egyptian courts have jurisdiction over any defendant, whether Egyptian or foreign, who resides in, or is domiciled in, Egypt. See Cour de Cassation, Challenge No. 145 for judicial year 62 (Decision 15 May 2000); and Cour de Cassation, Challenge No. 952 for judicial year 71 (Decision 12 January...

Insolvency law and admiralty or shipping/maritime law Insolvency and admiralty or shipping/maritime law routinely involve cross-border dealings and assets spread across several jurisdictions. Over time, each area has developed mechanisms to recognise foreign legal regimes and to move towards harmonisation, whether through evolving practice or by unifying rules via international conventions. Nevertheless, these disciplines have largely progressed independently, paying limited attention to one another. As a result, although both seek international coherence, real points of friction have emerged between insolvency and maritime practice, which parties confronting a maritime insolvency must carefully consider... The principal obstacle to conventional insolvency pathways is the range of rights held by stakeholders in the shipping sphere over the key tangible assets of shipowners—namely, vessels—arising under: internationally recognised traditional maritime law (maritime liens) international conventions, for example the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, Brussels 1952 (the ‘Brussels Convention’) (arts 1–2) local statute, such as the Senior Courts Act 1981 in England or the Admiralty Jurisdiction...