Courts and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in Transnational Ecological Conflicts: Reflections from the Arusha Workshop

Following the workshop on the role of actors in transnational ecological conflicts and climate litigation held in Colombia (see blogpost),  the Curiae Virides Research Project continued to explore judicial and non-judicial mechanisms for addressing ecological harm with special focus in Africa. In November 2024, the project convened a second international workshop at the MS Training Centre for Development Cooperation in Arusha, Tanzania. The workshop was supported by the European Research Council (ERC), The Brussels School of Governance  (Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)) and by VLIR-UOS. In addition, this event was possible thanks to the partnership with the VUB’s Department of Public Law, the International Peace Information Service (IPIS), Avocats sans Frontières (ASF), the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI), the Global Network of Human Rights and the Environment (GNHRE) and the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI). 

 

 

In the 21st century, there is a marked increase in the use of judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms aiming at protecting nature and communities from environmental risks and hazards and to guarantee access to justice and effective remedies when harm has already occurred. From polluted rivers to deforestation and land disputes, these ecological conflicts often have a transnational element, with companies leading value chains on several continents, making it difficult to resolve them in a single country. Furthermore, global warming, biodiversity loss, and harmful management of waste are global crises that go beyond national borders. These global impacts are coupled with the fragility of local communities that result affected by these transnational ecological harms. National legal systems often fall short when it comes to providing timely, effective, and inclusive solutions to these communities and to the safeguarding of a wide range of ecosystems, flora, and fauna from watersheds to coral reefs and animal migration corridors.

 

 

 

2.      Frontlines of transnational ecological conflict resolution

First, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in environmental justice matters — particularly company-level grievance mechanisms and OECD National Contact Points (NCPs) mediation — was discussed. The session organised by IPIS focused on the aftermath of the Williamson Diamond Mine tailings dam breach in Tanzania, highlighting community experiences in seeking remedy. The session underscored the importance of community empowerment, corporate accountability, and inclusive design in ADR processes in the context of mining and associated infrastructure. Then, the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement with affected communities was analysed through the lens of OECD NCPs (soft) case law. These mechanisms are not always considered effective, but they are sometimes the only real option for right-holders to prevent harm or to get some remedies for communities and ecosystems. This may be due to a lack of financial or legal resources, an inability to engage the country’s judicial system, geographical distance from the nearest judicial authority, or constraints related to border crossings when the main alleged perpetrators are not within the country.

Second, presenters discussed how national courts — especially in home states of transnational corporations — can provide remedies for environmental harm caused abroad. Presentations examined landmark cases and legal strategies used by communities in African countries. They emphasised the principle of solidarity, the use of local knowledge, and the barriers to enforcement across jurisdictions. These discussions revealed both the promise and the limitations of national courts in delivering justice in complex, cross-border ecological disputes.

 

 

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) were identified as potentially powerful yet underutilised actors in the enforcement landscape. As institutions with a legal mandate delineated by the respective country’s constitution, NHRIs have a key role to play on monitoring state compliance and engaging in public advocacy. NHRIs often function as intermediaries between communities, governments, and international bodies, helping to translate legal judicial and quasi-judicial decisions into tangible results. In contexts where corporations or state actors resist enforcement, NHRIs can advocate for accountability through legal oversight and collaboration with academic institutions, civil society organisations and regional human rights systems. For instance, NHRIs have participated in events seeking these synergies such as the Human Rights, Environment, and Climate Change in Africa co-organised in 2025 by RWI, the University of Nigeria, the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria, the Community Court of Justice ECOWAS, and the Regional Africa Human Rights Academic Network. However, NHRIs are state bodies, and they do not always have the financial resources or the independence needed to fulfil these roles.

Fourth, the role of environmental and human rights defenders in seeking the protection of communities and ecosystems is essential to obtain environmental justice. Case studies from Uganda, Tanzania, and the Caribbean were discussed. Speakers from Civic Response on Environment and Development, University of Johannesburg, the RWI and the University of the West Indies highlighted the risks defenders face, from legal harassment to forced displacement. The panel called for stronger legal protections, international solidarity, and recognition of human rights and environmental defenders as essential actors in climate-sensitive land-use planning, biodiversity stewardship and environmental democracy. Inclusive governance, legal reforms, and tools such as vulnerability and risk assessments, participatory mapping, and supporting girls’ leadership programmes in risk reduction are key to strengthening the participation of defenders. These conditions allow defenders to drive change and foster resilience on the ground.

Fifth, the role of regional and sub-regional courts —such as the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), or the Community Court of Justice (CCJ) of the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) —in adjudicating ecological conflicts examined landmark cases, including the Ogiek case in Kenya and the SERAP v. Nigeria case. Speakers discussed how these courts are evolving to address environmental and human rights lawsuits, despite challenges in enforcement and access.

In a roundtable moderated by ASF, speakers highlighted the innovative legal provisions of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, which allow parties to initiate proceedings before the EACJ without first exhausting local remedies, thereby enabling them to obtain redress in a reasonable timeframe. However, this is counterbalanced by the short timeframe of two months within which plaintiffs can bring a lawsuit after a treaty violation occurs. For cases involving environmental harm, this limit is a significant hindrance. Furthermore, the EACJ has rejected the concept of ‘continuing violations’, recognised by other regional bodies such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and subregional courts such as the ECOWAS CCJ. As a result, bringing environmental cases before the EACJ is difficult, given that ecological harm is often discovered late. This approach also runs contrary to the practice of all other international and regional courts.

Similarly, the wide range of remedies that the AfCHPR can grant under Article 27 of the Protocol establishing the AfCHPR was considered favourable for plaintiffs bringing environmental lawsuits. Case law, including the Ogiek case, has expanded the types of remedies and reparations that the Court can grant. Additionally, the UK High Court invoked the provisions of Article 24 of the African Charter, which grants all peoples the right to a healthy environment, for the first time in a case involving Niger Delta oil spills and pollution. The panelists deplored the fact that very few states have allowed direct access to the AfCHPR through ratification of the Protocol, restricting individuals’ and NGOs’ ability to redress or remediate human rights violations connected to environmental harms.

 

Sixth, the panel on climate litigation in Africa and the Global South discussed the growing reliance on legal instruments to address climate-related damage in areas disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis. The presentations emphasised that, in the Global South, climate cases frequently attempt to address several injustices simultaneously, including human rights violations, environmental degradation and historical accountability. This layered approach reflects the broader social and political struggles that communities face, encouraging courts to respond to the complex realities on the ground. Speakers also explored the role of children in litigation and the importance of ecocentric legal reasoning, as well as how to use transnational avenues to hold corporations in the Global North accountable for causing harm in the Global South. Recent cases — such as youth-led litigation against coal expansion in South Africa, a lawsuit linked to the  East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP) project, and lawsuits in Nigeria exposing the impact of oil pollution on children’s health and livelihoods — illustrate how climate litigation is increasingly bringing children’s rights and intergenerational justice to the fore. The discussion critically addressed whether courts could serve as empowered spaces in which vulnerable groups, including children, can express their views and defend their rights. Despite barriers such as weak enforcement and political resistance, the panel emphasised the potential of litigation to amplify marginalised voices and promote broader climate justice initiatives.

 

 

3.       Diverse methods, deeper insights: connecting disciplines and societal sectors to tackle transnational ecological conflicts

The Curiae Virides team presented the methodological challenges in studying transnational ecological conflicts. Some of these challenges relate to the definition of transnational ecological conflicts, the possibilities, and limitations from an empirical legal studies perspective to build litigation databases and how social network analysis of actors and courts involved in environmental litigation can bring avenues for the analysis of these phenomena. Insights from the workshop showed that some topics need interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approaches to understand how ecological conflicts unfold, how legal systems respond and the real-life impacts of judicial and quasi-judicial processes.

Evidence-based research is challenging, but essential for providing credible insights into the complex and often contradictory realities that coexist during the unfolding or latent stages of transnational ecological conflicts. Experimental research using diverse methodologies is essential to generate new understanding of these complex problems that cannot necessarily be assessed with existing disciplinary approaches. Additionally, academia needs to engage in dialogue with actors involved in these conflicts, as well as with practitioners facing these challenges first-hand. This collaborative approach ensures that research remains relevant and context-sensitive, capable of developing innovative ideas and concepts, and informs policy and practice in a way that respects the lived experiences and knowledge of all groups.

 

 

4.      Ways forward

The Arusha Workshop was a collaborative initiative aimed at exploring how regional, national, and transnational legal mechanisms could address ecological crises. After three days of discussions and exchanges, important nuances were identified. The variety of actors involved, the interconnectedness of multiple state and non-state legal traditions, and the variety of options for addressing transnational ecological conflicts all point to the need for integrative, interdisciplinary, and transnational approaches to understanding the dimensions of environmental justice. The effectiveness of legal responses — whether through national courts, regional bodies, alternative mechanisms, or out-of-court settlements — depends on political will, community participation, and the accountability of state and non-state actors.

 

 

An important point for academia is that these realities need empirical evidence and engagement with formal and informal institutions, which represents a systemic challenge to gather data in a comprehensive manner. However, this should not hinder the possibility of making progressive contributions in the understanding of these wicked problems. Therefore, cross-disciplinary collaboration is essential for understanding these complex phenomena and defining how existing mechanisms can be harnessed to respond more effectively to these ecological challenges.

Furthermore, cooperation among rightsholders and stakeholders, including affected communities, advocacy and civil society organisations, lawyers and academia, is essential to generate innovative knowledge on these issues. By bringing together a variety of voices and perspectives, the event revealed numerous ways in which legal instruments can empower communities and emphasised the importance of transnational networks in protecting ecosystems and the communities that inhabit them. Finally, the ideas in this workshop seem to converge around bringing legal mechanisms closer to lived realities.

 

5. Summaries of the presentations and videos of the workshop

    

X. Bekaert and L. Lizarazo-Rodriguez prepared key takeaways of each day. The videos were recorded at the MS-TCDC with participants’ authorisation and edited by Jérôme Vanwelde (Brussels School of Governance-VUB).