Nomosphone: A Global Law Podcast Nomosphone

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.).