APCEL Book Launch: Environmental Courts and Tribunals in Asia-Pacific

APCEL hosted a book launch webinar, Environmental Courts and Tribunals in Asia-Pacific, on 13 February. Congratulations to Linda Yanti Sulistiawati and Sroyon Mukherjee on the publication of their book!

With growing concerns over the inadequacy of environmental commitments and the increasing prevalence of environmental litigation, Environmental Courts and Tribunals (ECTs) are playing an ever more critical role in adjudicating environmental disputes, ensuring access to environmental justice, and strengthening environmental governance. Yet, despite their growing significance, ECTs remain underexamined, particularly in the legally and politically diverse Asia-Pacific region. This makes the launch of Environmental Courts and Tribunals in Asia-Pacific: Best Practices, Challenges, and the Way Forward uniquely significant.

Co-edited by Linda Yanti Sulistiawati and Sroyon Mukherjee, this is the first edited volume dedicated to a systematic study of ECTs in Asia and the Pacific. Bringing together contributions from judges, scholars, and practitioners, the book examines the establishment, functions, and jurisprudence of ECTs, offering comparative insights into their strengths, limitations, and potential trajectories. Through a rigorous analysis, it explores how ECTs navigate complex legal frameworks, respond to jurisdictional mandates, and shape environmental adjudication across diverse political and cultural landscapes.

Building on research undertaken by the Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law (APCEL) at the National University of Singapore, including the 2021 UNEP Report on ECTs, this volume provides a nuanced, jurisdiction-specific examination of ECTs in action. It addresses key questions such as the factors driving their establishment, the scope of their jurisdictional authority, and their influence on environmental governance. Featuring case studies from jurisdictions including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Australia, New Zealand, and regional analysis on ECTs,  the book highlights how ECTs contribute to the development of environmental law while confronting legal, procedural, and structural challenges.

This book launch brings together leading experts to discuss the key findings and broader implications of this work. As environmental litigation continues to grow, ECTs are increasingly called upon to resolve complex disputes, interpret evolving legal principles, and uphold environmental rights. This discussion aims to foster critical dialogue on the role of ECTs in advancing environmental governance, access to justice, and the rule of law across the Asia-Pacific region.

From top left to right (Top Row): Linda Sulistiawati, Justice Brian Preston, Grizelda Mayo-Anda,
From top left to right (Second to Third Row): Gitanjali Nain Gill, Sroyon Mukherjee, Alan Webb, Agung Wardana

Proceedings

Speaker 1:

Justice Brian Preston’s Remarks

Chapter 1 – The Role of Environmental Courts in Delivering Environmental Justice

The first chapter explores how ECTs contribute to access to justice, particularly in the face of pressing planetary crises.

Courts have always played a crucial role in upholding justice, but as environmental challenges escalate, environmental justice has emerged as an essential concept. Courts must adapt to these evolving needs, and one significant adaptation is the establishment of specialized ECTs. The key argument for ECTs is that they provide more efficient, effective, and equitable resolutions to environmental disputes than conventional courts. My chapter examines whether this justification holds up.

To understand how ECTs contribute to environmental justice, we must first define environmental justice itself. It comprises three main dimensions which are (i) distributive justice as fair allocation of environmental benefits and burdens; (ii) procedural Justice as ensuring transparency and participation in decision-making; and (iii) recognition Justice – Respecting and acknowledging the voices of all affected stakeholders.

The effectiveness of ECTs depends on the functional roles they perform and the key attributes that enable them to do so. Their primary function is dispute resolution, but they also: facilitate stakeholder representation in environmental decision-making, provide a forum for public discourse on the non-legal dimensions of environmental problems, and interpret and uphold environmental laws and their underlying values.

Additionally, ECTs contribute to environmental jurisprudence by developing doctrines and employing specialized dispute resolution mechanisms, including a multi-door courthouse approach, which tailors processes to the complexities of each case.

ECT competence has two key aspects: constitutional and institutional. Constitutional competence defines the court’s role in governance and requires an understanding of the separation of powers. An ECT with strong constitutional competence can function as a one-stop shop, resolving diverse environmental disputes comprehensively.

Institutional competence refers to the court’s decision-making capacity and ability to use a range of dispute resolution processes to address complex environmental issues effectively. This adaptability helps overcome challenges that conventional courts face in polycentric environmental disputes.

An ECT’s effectiveness also depends on the expertise of its judges, which includes contributory expertise (legal knowledge of environmental law) and interactional expertise (the ability to engage with scientific and technical disciplines). A specialized ECT, with judges trained in both legal and interdisciplinary fields, has a distinct advantage over conventional courts in delivering environmental justice. Ultimately, the success of ECTs depends on their competence, expertise, and ability to evolve with environmental challenges.

In conclusion, ECTs enhance access to environmental justice by providing tailored dispute resolution processes, developing environmental jurisprudence, and ensuring informed decision-making. Their success, however, depends on their competence, jurisdiction, and expertise.

Speaker 2:

Dr. Gitanjali Nain Gill’s Remarks

Chapter 2 – India’s National Green Tribunal: Quo Vadis ?

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), established in 2010, is officially described as a specialized body equipped with the necessary expertise to handle environmental disputes involving multidisciplinary issues. The tribunal has gained wide recognition both within India and internationally.

However, after 15 years of procedural changes and evolving judicial leadership, there is a need for reflection and analysis—both on its past achievements and its future direction. My chapter examines the NGT’s journey using a core values evaluative framework, which provides an external perspective on its institutional performance.

This analysis draws on the International Framework for Court Excellence, a living document that promotes 10 core values essential to effective environmental adjudication and judicial service delivery:

1. Equality before the law
2. Accessibility
3. Fairness
4. Impartiality
5. Judicial independence
6. Competence
7. Integrity
8. Transparency
9. Timeliness
10. Certainty

These core values serve as benchmarks for assessing the performance of environmental courts, helping to reinforce a holistic approach toward judicial reform, service improvement, and innovation. In my analysis, I explore how effectively the NGT has embedded and applied these values within its institutional structure and operational practices.

My findings indicate that while the NGT’s institutional framework partially reflects these core values, its functioning presents a mixed picture. The tribunal has promoted environmental justice by integrating scientific expertise with legal decision-making, adopting an active problem-solving approach, and focusing on implementation and compliance.

However, several structural challenges have undermined its effectiveness, including:

• Questionable bench appointments that raise concerns about judicial independence.
• Appealed and overturned judgments, which affect its credibility.
• Procedural overreach and underperformance, leading to inefficiencies.
• Delays and inefficiencies in case disposal, impacting public trust.

These shortcomings risk undermining the environmental rule of law and reducing public confidence in the tribunal’s ability to deliver justice. To address these concerns, the NGT would benefit from undertaking a critical self-assessment, supported by a robust feedback mechanism. Such an evaluation would:

• Enhance judicial accountability.
• Improve service quality.
• Strengthen the tribunal’s progress toward excellence.

The National Green Tribunal must critically assess its future role by addressing fundamental yet challenging questions regarding its institutional reforms and long-term sustainability. Answering these questions will be beneficial both for the institution and for the future of environmental justice in India.

Speaker 3:

Alan Webb’ s Remarks

Chapter 3 -The New Zealand Environment Court: Past, Present and Future

To begin, I fully endorse the remarks made earlier by Justice Brian Preston. In New Zealand, we aim for similar judicial outcomes as those in Australia. The regime in Australia is excellent, and we are working to replicate elements of it in our system.

New Zealand’s approach to environmental governance is based on sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This principle informs how people seek to use land, extract minerals, and carry out developments within the environment, which is broadly defined in our legal system.

The Environment Court, as it is known today, was established in 1996 but evolved from the Planning Tribunal, creating a continuity in jurisprudence. Around the same time, New Zealand introduced the Resource Management Act (RMA), which shifted the focus of environmental decision-making. This transition allowed for a seamless evolution of environmental governance.

A slightly unusual feature of our system is that the Environment Court adjudicates not only environmental disputes but also decisions regarding planning documents. This means the court is involved in shaping the very rules that govern environmental management.

At present, however, New Zealand’s environmental framework is in flux. There is significant political debate about whether the RMA is still fit for purpose. Successive governments have sought to repeal and replace it with new environmental laws.

• The Labour government introduced legislation to repeal the RMA and replace it with new statutes.
• Since our chapter was written, a new government has come into power and repealed those new laws, intending to create an entirely different framework.

The role of the Environment Court in this new system is unclear. It is uncertain how much influence it will retain in shaping environmental rules and overseeing disputes.

Another major development is the introduction of a fast-track approval process for environmental projects. This new process effectively bypasses the RMA, prioritizing development that has national and regional economic benefits. There are growing concerns that:

• Economic growth is being prioritized over environmental protection.
• The principle of sustainable management is being weakened.
• Environmental safeguards and judicial oversight may be compromised.

When we wrote this chapter, we were confident in stating that New Zealand’s environmental adjudication model was effective. Now, with these recent developments, we are less certain about its future direction. We will continue to observe how these changes unfold and share updates as the legal landscape evolves.

Speaker 4

Agung Wardana’ s Remarks

Chapter 6 – Greening the Bench in Indonesia: From Certification to Environmental Courts?

In this chapter, he examines the emerging aspiration to establish environmental courts in Indonesia. This aspiration is not new—it has existed for more than two decades, particularly since the fall of the Suharto regime in the late 1990s. The push for environmental courts was largely driven by:

• Increased pollution and environmental degradation during Indonesia’s rapid industrialization under authoritarian rule.
• The failure of traditional courts to effectively enforce environmental laws, largely due to judges’ lack of expertise in environmental law.
• Advocacy efforts from NGOs, academics, and the public, who demanded judicial reform to improve environmental dispute resolution.

However, the process of establishing new courts had to go through the political system, and this created significant barriers. Rather than approving environmental courts, policymakers instead redirected the demand toward an environmental judicial certification system. This was because creating a new court was seen as politically, legally, and financially too challenging.

From a political perspective, an independent environmental court was viewed as a potential obstacle to economic development, as Indonesia’s economy relies heavily on extractive industries. From a legal standpoint, Indonesia’s judicial framework only recognizes four types of courts, meaning that establishing a new one would require a complex legislative amendment process. Financially, the government considered that setting up a new court system would require a substantial investment, placing an additional financial burden on the state.

As a result, the environmental judicial certification system was introduced by the Supreme Court as an alternative. Under this system:

• Judges from civil and administrative courts undergo several months of training in environmental law.
• Topics include environmental principles, sustainable development, climate change, and judicial activism.
• Every environmental case must be heard by at least one certified judge.
• If a court does not have a certified judge, one can be deployed from another jurisdiction.

However, after two decades of implementation, the outcome has been disappointing. This is particularly evident in climate change-related cases, which represent one of the most urgent environmental challenges today.

Certified judges, despite their training, often fail to apply their environmental legal knowledge in climate litigation. Many judges continue using traditional civil law reasoning, which is inconsistent with environmental legal principles. One major factor is that certified judges continue working within a traditional judicial system that does not encourage progressive application of environmental law. This system remains highly conservative, making it difficult for judges to exercise judicial activism, which is often necessary to deliver environmental justice.

As a result, the aspiration to establish environmental courts in Indonesia has resurfaced. However, without fundamental transformation in Indonesia’s political and economic structures to align with sustainable development, pursuing this aspiration will likely face the same challenges as before—namely, political resistance, legal hurdles, and financial constraints.

In conclusion, while the certification system was seen as a politically viable alternative, it has not effectively improved environmental adjudication. The need for specialized environmental courts remains, but the obstacles that prevented their establishment two decades ago still exist today.

Speaker 5

Grizelda Mayo-Anda’ s Remarks

Chapter 3 Environmental Courts and Tribunals in the Philippines: Opportunities and Challenges in Environmental Litigation

Her chapter examines the opportunities and challenges in adjudicating environmental cases in the Philippines, which was presented from the perspective of a public interest environmental lawyer.

The Philippines has a well-developed legal framework for environmental litigation. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a set of procedural rules that govern environmental litigation. However, even before these rules were formally adopted, the Supreme Court had already designated 117 environmental courts in 2008. Over the years, various environmental laws have also been passed, providing clear legal processes, remedies, and penalties for environmental violations.

One of the key opportunities in the Philippine system is the carefully structured approach to procedural reform. When the Supreme Court was drafting the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it conducted extensive consultations with various stakeholders, including civil society groups, prosecutors, judges, academic institutions, and local communities. The Court took into account several concerns, such as legal standing, litigation costs, and the need for expedited proceedings, ensuring that these rules would be accessible and effective for environmental litigation.

When the rules were finally issued in 2010, they provided groundbreaking legal mechanisms to enhance environmental adjudication. Among these innovations were special writs specifically designed to address environmental issues. The Writ of Kalikasan, for example, bridges the gap between science and law, ensuring that legal arguments are informed by scientific evidence and government mandates. The Writ of Continuing Mandamus, inspired by similar legal tools in India, allows courts to compel government agencies to take ongoing action to address environmental harm. Another critical provision is the Precautionary Principle, which states that the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not be a reason for inaction when dealing with environmental threats.

These opportunities were complemented by actions from various advocacy groups. Over time, significant environmental cases have been brought before the courts, and their rulings have contributed to the growing body of environmental jurisprudence in the Philippines. Additionally, the Rules of Procedure expanded access to justice by introducing liberalized legal standing, allowing citizen suits to be filed in environmental matters. Mediation and consent decrees were also incorporated as mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution, ensuring that some environmental disputes could be resolved without lengthy litigation.

However, despite these progressive legal frameworks, significant challenges remain. One of the most persistent issues is the difficulty of establishing sufficient evidence in environmental cases. Many lawsuits have been dismissed because the Supreme Court was not satisfied with the evidence presented. Environmental cases require scientific and technical expertise, and many lawyers and plaintiffs struggle to gather the necessary documentation to prove environmental harm.

Another challenge is the limited availability of scientific and technical resources to support environmental litigation. Courts often lack the technical capacity to fully assess environmental claims, and there is a shortage of expert witnesses who can provide the necessary testimony. Additionally, the pool of public interest environmental lawyers in the Philippines is very small, and yet the number of environmental cases continues to grow. As a result, many cases are left unresolved, and many communities remain unaware of their legal rights and available legal remedies.

One of the most well-known environmental cases in the Philippines is Minors Oposa v. Factoran, which established the right to a balanced and healthful ecology and recognized the rights of future generations under the principle of intergenerational equity. However, while this case is widely cited, the challenge remains: how do we translate these landmark decisions into meaningful environmental protection and enforcement?

In conclusion, the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases have provided important opportunities for strengthening environmental adjudication in the Philippines. However, significant practical barriers remain, particularly in evidentiary standards, scientific capacity, and legal representation. If we are to fully realize the potential of these legal tools, we must continue to enhance legal education, strengthen scientific support for litigation, and expand public awareness of environmental rights.

Speaker 6:

Kokila Lankathilake Konasinghe’ s Remarks

Chapter 9 – South Asian Perspectives on Environmental Courts and Tribunals Prospects and Challenges

Her chapter in this book holds significance in two key ways.

First, it broadens understanding of ECTs for a wider audience. Despite their growing role in environmental adjudication, ECTs remain largely unrecognized at national and regional levels. Many stakeholders, including legal professionals and policymakers, lack clarity on where ECTs fit within judicial systems. Questions persist regarding their formal legal status, the validity of their decisions, and the composition of their benches. This chapter, along with the other contributions in this book, aims to provide clearer explanations on these foundational issues.

Second, her chapter introduces a South Asian perspective into the global discourse on ECTs. South Asia is home to biodiversity hotspots, rich ecosystems, and significant environmental heritage dating back thousands of years. In his separate opinion in the Hungary v. Slovakia case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Judge C.G. Weeramantry highlighted ancient Sri Lankan scriptures as evidence of the region’s long-standing environmental consciousness. However, despite this deep-rooted environmental legacy, South Asian nations face severe environmental challenges due to rapid infrastructure development, urbanization, wildlife exploitation, and climate change. These threats have reinforced the need for dedicated environmental courts and tribunals to uphold environmental justice and strengthen legal protection for environmental rights.

The first section of her chapter examines the existing ECTs in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. These countries have taken steps to integrate ECTs into their legal systems, and by analyzing their legal frameworks, jurisdiction, and procedures, we can identify both best practices and weaknesses in the current system.

The second section discusses the prospects and challenges of establishing ECTs across South Asia and in other developing nations. This discussion is valuable not only for South Asian countries but also for other jurisdictions considering the adoption of ECTs. The chapter explores which factors must be carefully assessed when introducing ECTs into legal systems and how these factors can influence judicial effectiveness.

In examining the existing ECTs in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, the chapter assesses:

• Their legal framework and jurisdiction.
• The expertise of judges and panel members.
• The availability of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms.
• Procedural challenges and areas where ECTs have struggled with implementation.

The subsequent section focuses on the best strategies for establishing and maintaining effective ECTs. A well-functioning ECT must be designed to:

• Ensure access to environmental justice.
• Define a clear jurisdiction and procedural framework.
• Recruit experts with environmental and legal knowledge.
• Incorporate ADR mechanisms to resolve disputes efficiently.

Her chapter also highlights some of the major challenges faced by South Asian ECTs, such as:

• Lack of judicial and technical expertise in environmental matters.
• Barriers to access to justice, particularly for marginalized communities.
• Procedural inefficiencies and loopholes in environmental legislation.
• Institutional and logistical challenges in enforcement and implementation.

The analysis concludes with a recommendation that if ECTs are properly established—with clear legal frameworks, regulatory structures, and scientific expertise—they can play a transformative role in environmental governance. Well-structured ECTs will not only enhance environmental protection efforts in South Asia but also strengthen environmental justice and the rule of law across the region and beyond.

Linda Yanti Sulistiawati’s Remarks

 Chapter 10 – Asia-Pacific Regional Perspective on Environmental Courts and Tribunals:

The Way Forward

Her chapter focuses on Asia-Pacific regional perspectives on Environmental Courts and Tribunals (ECTs), specifically discussing the way forward for the region. During the Q&A earlier, someone asked whether there is a general push in the region toward more local-level or more centralized (federal) ECTs. The answer to this is not straightforward, as the Asia-Pacific region is incredibly diverse in terms of its legal systems, socioeconomic conditions, and political structures.

We see countries like China, which has over 1,500 ECTs, and India, which has a well-established National Green Tribunal (NGT). On the other hand, we also have countries like Indonesia and Thailand, which have historically shied away from establishing ECTs. Because of this diversity, it is difficult to say whether there is a clear regional trend toward more local or federal ECTs. Each country’s approach is shaped by its legal and political landscape.

However, what we do see across the region is that ECTs play diverse roles in governing environmental issues. Some ECTs have quasi-legislative functions, meaning they can amend regulations or influence policy-making. Others have jurisdiction over human rights and environmental law, playing a role in linking environmental governance to human rights protection. As Justice Brian Preston pointed out earlier, ECTs in this region are not just courts—they are seen as modern, dynamic institutions that significantly impact economic, social, and environmental well-being.

This has created a perception among the public that ECTs are the ultimate solution—the place where they will find answers to environmental disputes. However, the stark disparities in economic development and governance across Asia-Pacific countries have led to significant variations in how ECTs function.

At the heart of these differences is an ongoing debate: Should environmental rights be treated as secondary rights, or as fundamental human rights? This question remains unresolved in many parts of the region and has a direct impact on how environmental adjudication is approached.

Regional Challenges and Perspectives on ECTs

 The first perspective in my chapter looks at countries that are still uncertain about establishing ECTs. This is particularly evident in Indonesia and Thailand, where one of the main concerns is defining the jurisdiction of ECTs. Some countries have opted for captive ECTs, meaning they have very limited jurisdiction. This can be seen in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Solomon Islands, where ECTs exist but operate under significant constraints.

Another major challenge is resource constraints. Many countries struggle with insufficient human resources, inadequate budgets, and a lack of political support for ECTs. Even in countries that have ECTs, there is very little public awareness about them. Furthermore, documentation of ECT activities remains poor, making it difficult to track progress and effectiveness. While some ECTs are well-documented, others operate with limited transparency.

The second perspective highlights the role of ECTs as institutions that shape environmental justice and environmental jurisprudence. Once an ECT is established, there is often high public expectation that it will deliver justice efficiently and decisively. However, achieving this depends on the legal framework, jurisdictional clarity, and institutional support given to ECTs.

The third perspective focuses on how ECTs encourage public participation. One of their greatest strengths is their flexible standing rules, which provide broader access to justice. ECTs often operate with greater transparency and procedural flexibility, making it easier for communities and civil society organizations to engage with them. The use of technology—such as digital case management systems and virtual hearings—has further improved accessibility, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, the fourth perspective sees ECTs as the last resort against environmental destruction, particularly in developing countries where other environmental protection mechanisms may be weak.

The Way Forward for ECTs in Asia-Pacific

The first key factor for strengthening ECTs is trust and support from governments and stakeholders. Many ECTs face uncertainty when political administrations change, leading to shifts in trust and funding support. Ensuring stable political backing, legal facilitation, and institutional security is essential for ECTs to function effectively.

The second critical factor is the enforceability of environmental laws. Many countries have strong environmental laws on paper, but weak enforcement mechanisms. Some ECTs issue rulings, but implementation remains inadequate due to institutional weaknesses and lack of political will.

The third factor is ensuring that ECTs remain responsive to global environmental challenges. Emerging issues such as climate litigation, environmental rights as human rights, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic require ECTs to adapt and evolve. In ASEAN, for instance, there has been a long-standing push to recognize environmental rights as fundamental human rights—a debate that remains ongoing.

In conclusion, the role of ECTs in Asia-Pacific will continue to evolve, shaped by political, economic, and legal factors unique to each country. Strengthening ECTs requires institutional stability, enforcement capacity, and responsiveness to emerging environmental challenges.

Q & A Session: Summary and Insights

The Q&A session reinforced the complexity of ECT development in the Asia-Pacific. As environmental issues continue to grow in global importance, the role of ECTs will likely evolve further, requiring ongoing legal, scientific, and institutional advancements.

• ECTs vary significantly across the Asia-Pacific region, making it difficult to generalize their role and effectiveness.
• The incorporation of scientific expertise remains a key challenge, with different countries adopting different strategies (judicial training, external experts, or in-house experts).
• Indigenous communities face significant legal hurdles, but flexible standing rules and legal support can enhance their participation in environmental litigation.
• Jurisdictional conflicts between ECTs and general courts exist in some countries, but clear legal demarcations and cross-vesting mechanisms help resolve disputes.
• Private international law and cross-border cases are emerging concerns, but most ECTs still operate within national legal frameworks.

Question 1:

Is there a push for Environmental Courts and Tribunals (ECTs) to be structured more as federal/national bodies or as local/regional institutions?

Responses:

• Dr. Linda Yanti Sulistiawati noted that Asia-Pacific ECTs are extremely diverse, and there is no single trend toward either a unified federal system or a more localized/regional model.
• Justice Brian Preston agreed, emphasizing that the structure of ECTs is shaped by national legal frameworks.
  • In Australia, constitutional limitations mean that ECTs are established at the state level, rather than nationally.
  • In Indonesia, the system would likely be national rather than state-based, given its unitary legal system.
  • China, which has over 1,500 ECTs, operates ECTs at multiple levels—from local courts to higher courts—reflecting a multi-tiered approach.
• Sroyon Mukherjee added that some ECTs are ad hoc or issue-specific, citing examples where courts are established temporarily for specific projects, such as dam construction disputes.

Conclusion:
There is no single model for ECT structures. Some countries prioritize local-level institutions, while others integrate ECTs into a national system. The structure is influenced by constitutional, political, and economic factors.

Question 2:

Many legal systems restrict certain types of scientific evidence in climate and environmental cases. What techniques have been used to integrate scientific expertise into ECT decision-making?

Responses:

• Grizelda Mayo-Anda (Philippines) highlighted that the Philippine Judicial Academy has training programs for judges, prosecutors, and clerks to improve their understanding of environmental science.
  • However, a key challenge is access to expert witnesses, prompting proposals for a formalized list of amicus curiae (expert advisors) who can assist the courts in complex scientific issues.
• Gitanjali Gill (India) explained that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has a built-in mechanism for integrating science into decision-making:
  • The NGT benches include both judicial members and scientific experts, making expertise an inherent part of the court’s decision-making process.
  • This model ensures that scientific and legal reasoning are merged, rather than relying only on external expert opinions.

Conclusion:
Techniques for incorporating science into ECTs vary by country. Some rely on judicial training and external experts, while others integrate scientific expertise into the tribunal’s composition itself.

Question 3:

Many environmental disputes involve indigenous and marginalized communities. How have ECTs engaged with these groups?

Responses:

• Gitanjali Gill (India) shared an example where illiterate fishermen successfully argued their case before the National Green Tribunal.
  • The court adopted a flexible approach, allowing them to present their arguments in their native language.
  • The liberal standing rules in India have allowed indigenous communities to directly participate in environmental litigation.
• Grizelda Mayo-Anda (Philippines) pointed out that, while indigenous groups have legal standing, they often face powerful corporate opposition (e.g., large mining companies with strong legal teams).
  • Indigenous groups require legal support from public interest lawyers and advocacy organizations to navigate court procedures and effectively challenge corporate polluters.

Conclusion:
While some ECTs provide broad access to indigenous communities, others require strong legal support networks to ensure fair representation. Flexible procedural rules and stronger public legal aid are key solutions.

Question 4:

Are there conflicts regarding whether an ECT should hear a case versus a generalist court? How are these resolved?

Responses:

• Justice Brian Preston (Australia) explained that, ideally, ECT jurisdiction is clearly defined at the outset, reducing conflicts.
  • However, in some cases, overlapping jurisdiction exists, which can be resolved through legal mechanisms such as:
    • Exclusive jurisdiction: Certain cases are designated only for ECTs.
    • Concurrent jurisdiction: Some cases can be heard in both ECTs and general courts, allowing plaintiffs to choose the forum they trust most.
    • Cross-vesting mechanisms: Courts can transfer cases between jurisdictions if one is deemed more appropriate.
• Gitanjali Gill (India) noted that jurisdictional conflicts have arisen between the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and High Courts.
  • The NGT was created to handle civil environmental cases, but its authority was challenged when High Courts also heard environmental matters.
  • The Supreme Court of India clarified that while the NGT is the primary forum, High Courts still retain jurisdiction, which can create procedural delays.

Conclusion:
Jurisdictional conflicts are minimized when clear rules exist. However, in some countries, jurisdictional overlaps persist, sometimes leading to delays in environmental justice.

Question 5:

Do private international law issues arise before ECTs? For example, can affected local communities sue multinational corporations in environmental courts?

Responses:

• Agung Wardana (Indonesia) explained that Indonesia has not yet established ECTs, so disputes involving communities and corporations are generally handled under domestic law.
  • Most environmental cases involve local communities suing corporations for violating environmental rights, but these are based on national legal frameworks rather than international mechanisms.
• Grizelda Mayo-Anda (Philippines) shared that Filipino communities have pursued environmental cases against multinational corporations.
  • The Philippines’ environmental courts handle these cases when they involve local environmental harm.
  • A notable example is the National Inquiry on Climate Change, which, although not an ECT case, has global relevance as Filipino plaintiffs are involved in climate litigation in other countries.

Conclusion:
Cross-border environmental litigation is still evolving in ECTs. Some countries limit cases to national jurisdiction, while others explore international legal strategies for environmental justice.