Category: International Law Page 2 of 12

Decision Commented On: Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (2025)

PDF Version: Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

Over the past decade, litigants—mainly young people—have petitioned domestic courts worldwide to assess if governments are doing enough to combat climate change. Courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America mostly responded positively, issuing directives for more ambitious climate action. Although similar cases have been brought before Canadian courts, no case has succeeded on its merits in compelling federal or provincial governments to raise the level of their climate commitments. This situation might soon change, especially with the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Agreement in Principle on a Revised Columbia River Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On July 18, 2024

In International Law, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Event commented on: Announcement of an Agreement in Principle on a Revised Columbia River Treaty, July 11, 2024

PDF Version: Agreement in Principle on a Revised Columbia River Treaty

Last week the governments of Canada and the United States announced that they had reached an agreement in principle (AiP) on a set of amendments to “modernize” the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). It has taken the parties over six years to reach this point. I have provided some background on the CRT and the launch of the renegotiation in previous ABlawg posts here and here. The parties have yet to provide the full text of the AiP but the Government of British Columbia has posted a backgrounder that summarizes the terms of the AiP as well as a useful Q & A page. Here is the text of the summary:

What Did the Court Mean When It Said that UNDRIP “has been incorporated into the country’s positive law”? Appellate Guidance or Rhetorical Flourish?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 28, 2024

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, International Law, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes and Robert Hamilton

Case commented on: Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 (CanLII).

PDF Version: What Did the Court Mean When It Said that UNDRIP “has been incorporated into the country’s positive law”? Appellate Guidance or Rhetorical Flourish?

In its recent reference opinion on the validity of an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24 (the FNIM Act), the Supreme Court went out of its way to comment on the legal significance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14 (the federal UNDRIP Act). The Court did so notwithstanding that legal questions relating to the federal UNDRIP Act were not directly before it, and notwithstanding its own observations in the Reference to the effect that “[t]he task that falls to the Court in the context of a reference invites caution …” (at para 111). That it chose to comment at such length is even more remarkable when one reflects on how reticent the Court seems to have been to comment on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or Declaration), or international human rights law more generally, in other cases over the last two decades dealing with Indigenous rights.

The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

By Robert Hamilton

On October 25, 2023

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, International Law, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Robert Hamilton

Case Commented on: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

In the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Ref), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutionality of the federal environmental impact assessment regime. For analysis of what precise aspects of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) the majority found unconstitutional (and which it held were unproblematic), see the post by my colleagues Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David V. Wright here.

The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

By Nigel Bankes

On October 5, 2023

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented on: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

This is the first of what we anticipate will be a series of posts on this important decision which involved a challenge to the implementation and/or constitutional validity of British Columbia’s hard rock mineral regime under the terms of the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292 [MTA]. Other posts will address the substance of the duty to consult and accommodate argument in the context of free entry regimes, as well as the sacred site issues discussed in the decision.