Tamanna (JFIEL): Thank you very much for joining us for this interview. To start off, we believe you are exceptionally well-suited to discuss the topic of the gap between the theoretical foundations of the law and its practical application. As an individual who combines the roles of an international law practitioner and an academic, how do you perceive this gap between theory and practice? Could you provide an example from your own experience where you have encountered and experienced such a disparity?

Justin Sobion: First of all, thank you for inviting me to be a part of this important discussion, particularly on bridging the gap not only between international law theory and practice but also between students and academia. Speaking from the perspective of international environmental law, one can clearly observe this gap. International environmental law often presents itself as a utopian ideal, sometimes referred to as “ecotopia,” a blend of ecology and utopia. As a subject, environmental law sounds promising in theory, often described as a manifestation of ‘green dreams.’ However, the challenge lies in its practical application and whether it can truly fulfill its intended goals.

For example, consider the concept of the rights of nature. India, following New Zealand’s lead, recognized the Ganges River as a non-human entity with legal personality, a decision made by the High Court shortly after a similar ruling in New Zealand. While this recognition is commendable on paper, the real challenge lies in translating these rights into practical implementation. It raises the question of whether such rights are merely theoretical or abstract. How do we ensure that these rights are upheld in practice? This inevitably involves a human responsibility towards nature and requires a comprehensive education process. This example illustrates the ongoing struggle to make the theory of international law practical and effective.

Tamanna: Sir, as you mentioned the example of India, a consistent criticism has been the lack of involvement of all stakeholders, particularly the individuals who live near and have a natural connection with the environment, in the decision-making process. For instance, in the case of the Ganges River, the guardian appointed is a state authority rather than the indigenous people who have a direct relationship with the river.

Given your extensive study and practice of law in various countries, do you observe differences in their approaches to environmental law and their stances on climate change? Specifically, how do these approaches differ in theory and in practice? While we commend the recognition of the Ganges River’s personhood on paper, in reality, there are significant gaps in implementation. Could you elaborate on these practical challenges and the variations you have seen in different countries?

Justin Sobion: That is an insightful question. To address the first part, it is correct that, in the case of the Ganges, the court appointed six individuals from state organs to act as “guardians” in loco parentis. Ideally, the management of such cases could benefit from involving individual stakeholders, such as citizens with a profound connection to the environment, in collaboration with state representatives. This approach could ensure that those with a deep, personal connection to the river, or other natural entities like glaciers, are included in the decision-making process.

In contrast, New Zealand’s approach to the Whanganui River is noteworthy. There, two individuals were appointed as guardians: one representing the state and the other representing the indigenous Māori community. This dual representation reflects a collaborative model between state and local stakeholders, acknowledging both legal and indigenous connections to the river.

Regarding your second question, there are indeed varying approaches to environmental law and climate change across different countries. We have observed a trend over the past decade, starting with New Zealand and notable cases such as the Supreme Court’s Amazon case in Colombia, where rights of nature are increasingly being recognized. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in litigation related to the rights of nature, such as the Salim and Miglani cases in India, and a case in Ecuador concerning forest rights in 2023. This trend suggests a growing judicial recognition of nature’s rights, and it will be interesting to see how this evolution continues over the next five to ten years.

Tamanna: As an academic, how has your experience as a practitioner influenced your perspectives on environmental issues? Do you find that your practical experience enables you to distinguish your views from those of other academics who may not have had similar practical experience in organizations?

Justin Sobion: I believe that my involvement in a global network of environmental lawyers has significantly influenced my perspectives. This network is vibrant and expansive, fostering a sense of community beyond national borders. It is a dynamic group that has opened many doors for me, allowing me to engage with a diverse range of professionals.

In response to your question, each member of this global environmental community, particularly within academia, brings a unique contribution to the field. We each have our own styles and approaches to writing. For instance, I can often identify an author’s work based on their distinctive language and style without knowing who wrote it beforehand. I value the collaborative spirit of this community and look forward to seeing how it evolves in the future.

Tamanna: That was a very insightful response, and we appreciate your perspective. My next question is related to your exploration of art and culture in the context of environmental law, which I noticed in some of your YouTube videos. With your specialization in international environmental law, coupled with your experience in human rights, constitutional law, and various multidisciplinary approaches, including art and culture, how does this diverse background influence your approach to environmental law? Could you elaborate on how this interdisciplinary perspective enriches your understanding and practice of environmental law?

Justin Sobion: To begin with, while I am an artist primarily as a hobby, I believe that creativity is essential in both art and law. I often tell my students that outstanding lawyers distinguish themselves through creative arguments and the ability to think outside the box. This perspective, which I learned from my father, emphasizes that success in law is not solely determined by academic achievements but by the capacity to develop innovative arguments.

Environmental law, particularly international environmental law, inherently involves interdisciplinary approaches. Its core purpose is to regulate the interaction between humans and the environment, encompassing nature and ecology. This field intersects with politics, science, and geography. For example, the term ‘ecology’ comes from the Greek words ‘eco,’ meaning ‘house,’ and ‘logy,’ meaning ‘study of,’ thus referring to the study of Earth’s systems. Ecology is fundamentally a scientific discipline, which incorporates earth systems science and geography.

Recently, scholars such as Kotze and Kim have introduced a new discipline called Earth System Law. This evolving field suggests that environmental law may be redefined as ecological law or earth system law in the future. These terms more accurately reflect the comprehensive nature of the discipline, which extends beyond mere atmospheric concerns to encompass broader ecological and earth system perspectives.

Tamanna: Indeed, environmental law education often extends beyond basic concepts to explore various interpretations and dimensions of the environment. My next question pertains to your involvement with the Earth Trusteeship Working Group. Could you elaborate on the focus of this research and its significance within the field of environmental law?

Justin Sobion: Earth trusteeship represents a forward-looking concept for me. I first encountered the term in 2018, introduced by my current supervisor, Professor Klaus Bosselmann at the University of Auckland. Approximately a year and a half later, I began my PhD thesis on this topic.

The concept of earth trusteeship emerged from discussions among a diverse group of stakeholders, including environmentalists, human rights lawyers, and indigenous experts. It is inspired by the Earth Charter, an international instrument adopted by global civil society in the early 2000s. The principles of earth trusteeship are increasingly relevant to our contemporary circumstances. They propose that humans, including both citizens and states, have a duty to hold the Earth in trust not only for current generations but also for future generations—those who are not yet born.

While much discourse focuses on human rights, such as the right to life, freedom of speech, and the right to vote, there is less emphasis on responsibilities. Earth trusteeship posits that, as global citizens, we have responsibilities not only towards fellow humans but also towards nature and the Earth, which is our shared home. This perspective extends beyond anthropocentrism to encompass non-human life and the Earth itself. It aligns with philosophical traditions such as Jainism or Hinduism, which emphasize non-harm and respect for all living beings. In essence, earth trusteeship addresses our responsibilities to both human and non-human life.

Tamanna: That topic indeed sounds both fascinating and engaging, and I look forward to learning more about it. My next question pertains to your role as a member of the panel of international lawyers assisting Caribbean states with the ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate change. Could you share your experiences in this role, particularly regarding the legal challenges and state responsibilities associated with climate change? Additionally, have you encountered any resistance from different groups or experienced common conflicts during debates and negotiations in this context?

Justin Sobion: Climate change affects everyone, but its impacts are disproportionately felt by those who have contributed least to the problem. The most vulnerable are often the ones who have contributed minimally to the causes of climate change and are experiencing significant disruptions as we transition from the Holocene epoch, characterized by a stable climate for approximately 12,000 years, into the Anthropocene epoch, marked by human-induced climate instability.

For small island states, particularly those engaged with the ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate change, the challenges are substantial. These states often lack the capacity to address the multifaceted issues of climate change, including scientific understanding, legal aspects, and securing necessary funding. From a Caribbean perspective, and similarly for Pacific states, the ICJ project is a pivotal opportunity—a once-in-a-lifetime chance for small island states to present their case before an international court. This opportunity to address the problems associated with climate change, including the evidence of communities whose towns, villages, and homes are submerged, is critical.

Although the ICJ Advisory Opinion is non-binding, it is significant because it involves the court making pronouncements on matters of grave importance under relevant international law. This process will contribute to the development of international jurisprudence, which will be valuable in addressing the climate crisis in the years to come. The rulings made could influence legal standards for decades, making this a crucial moment for small island states. If we miss this opportunity, it may be a considerable time before another such opportunity arises.

Tamanna: Thank you very much, Mr. Sobion. That concludes my questions. Aryaman shall take on now in the next part.

---

Justin Sobion is an Attorney at Law specializing in International Environmental Law. He obtained an LLM (Hons) in International Law from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, in 2008, and an LLM (Hons) in Environmental Law in 2020 from the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He also possesses an LLB (Hons) from the University of the West Indies. Justin was admitted to the Bar to practice law as an Attorney at Law in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in 2002 and later as a Barrister at Law and Solicitor in the Commonwealth of Dominica in 2008. His experiences in International Law include Environmental Law, Human Rights, Constitutional Law, and International Law of the Sea.

Presently, Justin is a Senior Tutor and is also working on his PhD thesis on Earth Trusteeship at the University of Auckland. He has also been on a panel of international lawyers established by Vanuatu to assist Caribbean states in preparing their written statements regarding the ICJ advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change.

---

Interviewed by Tamanna and Aryaman Kapoor, the Editors-in-Chief (2023). Transcribed and edited by Charunivetha, JFIEL Editor.

---

Picture Credit: Win Mcnamee/Getty Images