Web Key mess 1. St in 2. Co to 3. Co in 4. Co va h Subm T CIG link

 ulti‐stakehold
der Consultatiion Worksho
op A Mu
Orrganized by The Inte
ernational Law
w Research PProgram (ILRP
P) of The Centre fo
T
or International Governan
nce Innovatio
on (CIGI)1 CIGI ILRP First In
nternational EEconomic Law
w Consultatio
on Workshop
p on Emerging Isssues in Interrnational Tra de and Invesstment Law m. No
ovember 24th 2014, 8:30 a .m. – 9:00 p.m
Toronto
o, Ontario, CA
ANADA Rou
undtable Form
mat2 26 particcipants with 1
14 making intrroductory comments3 Web link to the Evvent’s page: https://www
w.cigionline.orrg/events/firsst‐internation
nal‐economic‐law‐
consultation‐workshop‐emerging‐issu es‐internatio
onal‐trade‐an Related Prroject page: h
https://www..cigionline.orgg/activity/invvestor‐state‐aarbitration Key messages regardin
ng IIA or ISDSS reform 1. Sttrike a multi‐‐disciplinary m
multi‐stakeho
older researcch approach tto internation
nal trade and
d in
nvestment an
nd global valu
ue chain legal regimes 2. Co
onsider how to reconcile and moderniize WTO & prreferential trrade & investtment agreem
ments to
o create policcy space to ad
ddress pressing global issu
ues 3. Co
onsider reforrms that wou
uld harmonize
e, unify, mod
dernize and eenhance rule of law legitim
macy in
n internationa
al investment agreementss 4. Co
onsider how to enhance international, transnation
nal and domeestic regulatio
on in the glob
bal va
alue chain for more equitable distribution of beneffits and to co
ontrol for envvironmental aand human rights ccosts Subm
mitted to WIF_
_IIA_Confere
[email protected] 1
See Anne
ex 4 for Backgro
ound on CIGI ILRP. See Anne
ex 1 for Agendaa. 3
See Anne
ex 2 for Attendee Sector List. 2
1 | P a g e CIGI ILRP First International Economic Law Consultation Workshop on Emerging Issues in International Trade and Investment Law4 Concrete research findings, innovative ideas and proposals for achieving sustainable development and inclusive growth related to IIA or ISDS reform that were discussed at the event. Multi‐disciplinary Multi‐stakeholder Research Approach. Create a forum for WTO DSU and ISDS experts, leading domestic jurists, human rights and environmental experts and political economists to discuss across their fields and identify the problems and possible solutions to dispute settlement involving developed and developing states, civil society and multinational corporate investors. Conduct research in such a way as to show the many sides of the issues. Generate tools for public education and teaching so that civil society in the developed and developing world is better able to assess and contribute to reform. Analyse how measures to encourage transfer of climate change technology and protect the human right to a safe environment can be reconciled with trade and investment obligations. Could there be an international consensus to not litigate on environmental issues? WTO and Preferential Trade & Investment Agreements. Is multilateralism presently in such a state of crisis that the only way to make progress in building resilient and responsive international rule of law is for like‐minded groups to develop their own treaties? Or does such behaviour undermine efforts to salvage multilateralism? Is this how we eventually arrive at multilateral agreement (norm‐entrepreneur states leading and pulling others to join)? Is there a way to save multilateralism by incorporating the pluri‐lateral preferential trade and investment agreements into the WTO and permit other states to accede if they can meet the necessary conditions? How to deal with the requirement of consensus? If the new mega regional trade agreements use the WTO DSU would the WTO be able to evolve to address the new issues at stake in these new agreements (e.g. better balance of environmental, human rights considerations)? Conduct a substantive review of the subsidies agreement to determine whether it is serving the policy purposes intended by governments. Study how to reconcile, rationalize or replace the varying and overlapping treaty obligations (e.g. preferential trade agreements vs. general obligation of non‐discrimination in the WTO)? New mega trade deals tend to include investment chapters. Could study if there would be interest in greater harmonization, although there may be preference for variation reflecting newer thinking about trade and investment (e.g. definition of investment, rules on establishment, recourse to local remedies). Given the above problems with working within the WTO, the business community is most focused on PTAs and BITs that can bring real economic improvements. What practical approaches can be taken to advance rule of law? Are there lessons from the WTO DSU that could be usefully adapted to ISDS? Study lessons learned from NAFTA, after twenty years, as an example of a relatively successful international trade and investment agreement: what worked, what did not, what has improved, what still needs to be changed? Could it be modernized to address today’s pressing issues e.g. clean energy 4
See Annex 3 for Observations from the Workshop. 2 | P a g e and climate change, green economy and sustainable development? Were the improvements to ISDS sufficient to address the current global critique of ISDS? International Investment Agreements. Study whether the time is right for a multilateral investment treaty to replace the 3000 plus BITs? If this were contemplated what would civil society want added to it (e.g. counterclaims in domestic law)? Would this provide an opportunity to create an appellate body, and if so how would it interface with ISDS systems (NY Convention, ICSID Convention). How would an appellate body deal with variations in language between different agreements (e.g. MFN, NT clauses)? Is there a way to reconcile trade and investment treaties and processes to avoid forum shopping, inconsistent rulings and double awards? Or is it best to accept the occasional inconsistency in order to preserve what works in WTO? Consider a norm entrepreneur project: revising a smaller number of BITS among willing innovator States to see how they could be harmonized, modernized and improved. Study whether it would be feasible to move away from arbitration as a means of ISDS to domestic adjudication of IS disputes and thereby improve global rule of law capacity. What would it take to enhance domestic rule of law to generate the needed confidence? E.g. study by CIGI Senior Fellow Armand de Mestral on ISDS between developed democracies with functioning domestic rule of law systems. What are the implications for ISDS when applied between developing and developed countries? As some developing countries withdraw from ISDS should a substitute system be developed or could domestic courts and private international law adjudicate all issues appropriately? Study how to integrate sustainable development goals more carefully into international investment agreements by having more balanced objectives including investor responsibilities, so it is not all about protection of the investor at the expense of domestic civil society, e.g. including social policy objectives such as the Black Economic Empowerment legislation in South Africa; ensuring that the foreign extractive industry investor undertakes to protect the environment and human rights. International, Transnational and Domestic Regulation in the Global Value Chain. Study regulatory issues that arise in relation to the global value chain: regulatory fragmentation and harmonization of standards, taxation avoidance by transnational corporations, inequitable distribution of benefits and externalization of environmental and human rights burdens and social and political costs, limits of state jurisdiction and the shift to private global regulation. Consider how to develop the Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into an enforceable body of international, transnational and domestic law. Study how a treaty or model law could target a non‐state actor conducting business globally. Study how individuals can enforce against corporations for human rights violations, bribery and corruption, and environmental degradation committed in their operations around the world. Consider whether this is best done through voluntary codes or through multilateral processes to ensure development of transparent standards? What is the appropriate role of governments with particular reference to the extractive sector? 3 | P a g e ANNEX 1 Agenda Time 8:00 a.m. 8:50 – 9:00 a.m. 9:00 ‐ 9:45 a.m. 9:45 ‐ 11:00 a.m. 11:00 ‐ 11:15 a.m. 11:15 ‐ 12:30 p.m. Topic Speakers Continental Breakfast
Location: Boardroom, Royal York Hotel, 100 Front Street West, Toronto, ON Welcome & Introduction
Location: Boardroom Two Distinct Topics ‐ Difference and Commonality in International Investment & Trade Law Session 1: Issues in Trade Law –
Plurilateral v. Multilateral Trade Agreements Health Break Session 2: Issues in Trade Law – Trade Subsidies NOTE: Speakers are limited to 10 minutes each.
Conference Call‐In Details 12:30 ‐ 1:45 p.m. 1:45 ‐ 3:00 p.m. Working Lunch (thematic discussion on CSR standards in the Global Value Chain) Session 3: Issues in Investment Law –
ISDS at its Best 3:00 ‐ 3:15 p.m. 3:15 ‐ 4:30 p.m. Health break Session 4: Issues in Investment Law –
Adapting ISDS to New Global Challenges 4:30 ‐ 5:30 p.m. Session 5: Specific Opportunities to have Impact on the Development of International Trade and Investment Law Dinner for continuation of informal discussion. Opportunities to have impact; organization of further research and collaboration Adjournment \ Departures
6:30 ‐ 8:30 p.m. 8:30 ‐ 9:00 p.m. Overview of issues The case for providing great room for pluri‐
lateral agreements within the WTO system Subsidies and development ‐ prospects for greater liberalization of trade in agriculture in the WTO system or under PTA’s Questions about conflict and convergence
Why ISDS generally works The new look of ISDS (e.g. in CETA) Process improvements in investor state arbitration (transparency, participation, consistency) Investor state arbitration between developed democracies Challenging the status quo of international economic law All
4 | P a g e ANNEX 2 Attendee Sector List: Think tank Private practice Public sector (domestic and international) Non‐governmental organization University Faculty of Law University Other Faculty 5 | P a g e ANNEX 3 Observations from the Consultation Workshop While the discussion was structured to separate out the topics of international trade, corporate social responsibility in the global supply chain, and international investment, it quickly became evident that there is significant overlap between the three topics: supply chain, trade and investment. The general consensus coming out of the workshop was that international trade and investment law is one of the more robust areas of international law but that it may not be well‐adapted to address issues that link trade or investment and the environment or human rights. There are governance gaps (discussed below) to be addressed and research to be done on regulation of corporate conduct in the global supply chain. Pluri‐lateral vs. Multilateral Trade Agreements International trade and investment law, which for decades led the way in developing international rule of law, has come to a critical point in its evolution. With over 3000 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), a multiplicity of regional trade and investment treaties, and stalled multilateralism at the WTO, investor‐
state and state‐to‐state dispute settlement processes can lead to contradictory and incoherent rulings. WTO dispute settlement processes with their recognition of public international law and the availability of appellate review, are generally viewed as one of the successes of 20th century international rule of law development. However, there is growing concern that the disputes coming before the WTO panels involve public policy issues of such complexity, breadth and significance that they cannot appropriately be decided by trade law experts. Having matters of climate change, environmental protection, global health, technology transfer, human development and human rights decided by a WTO panel operating under the framework of a trade agreement, using the lens of free trade, and applying the expertise of international trade jurists, arguably is not the optimal or most legitimate way to decide such important issues. Adapting ISDS to New Global Challenges At the same time ISDS provisions in BITs and regional trade and investment agreements are being used to challenge popular national regulation and to extract large monetary awards. IS disputes involve significant commercial interests, may result in large monetary awards to private investors and concomitant burdens on taxpayers, and may challenge public policy of high importance to national governments and their citizens. International arbitration, developed as a tool to facilitate efficient dispute resolution between two commercial parties, is proving less adept for deciding matters of public policy involving a national government, its citizenry and a private commercial party. The lack of transparency, impartiality, accountability, coherent jurisprudence, precedent and appellate structure, and the avoidance of established national courts in ISDS is attracting growing criticism and arguably undermines its legitimacy as a means to settle important and costly matters of national public policy. At this stage ISDS and DSU present rival models of global governance, both with their proponents and critics. The democratic critique of multilateral, pluri‐lateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements is that they subject national policy and legal decision making to an international constitution and remove some important issues from the jurisdiction of domestic courts to be pursued in a flawed, non‐transparent international dispute settlement system. The development critique is that 6 | P a g e developed countries establish the rules which developing countries have no choice but to accept; and that the promise that investment would lead to development has not been realized. Supporters of ISDS point out that it works to depoliticize disputes and is based in customary law. It fills a need that State to State litigation cannot effectively address as States do not want to champion all investor claims. Consider how it could be improved to address current concerns: for example, work towards a system of consistent “jurisprudence”; do away with the right to be wrong in ISDS through creation of a uniform appellate process; improve the factual record; allow public interest interveners; remove bias and conflict of interest concerns by disqualifying panelists from practising ISDS litigation; improve independence of panelists and ethical standards for the practice of arbitration; consider establishing a standing investment tribunal; limit access to ISDS by requiring exhaustion of local remedies first; require the investor to come to the arbitration process with clean hands (e.g. without outstanding claims against it by the local community); limit the issues that can go to ISDS; limit the amount of monetary awards; allow states to carve out for national policy exceptions to protect developmental, environmental and human rights objectives; require that the damages are actually caused by the violation (principle of state responsibility); and address the issue of equal protections for domestic industry. Trade Subsidies With tariffs being reduced, subsidies are the only policy tool kit available to governments trying to encourage renewable energy development or manage the financial crisis. The goal of eliminating subsidies is arguably out of date. Economists have studied this question extensively and concluded that an agreement is not needed. Do we need a carve‐out for infant nascent industry to give it a chance to develop and survive? On the other hand agricultural subsidies that have been protected are not economically sound but the vested interests and fear are too strong to change this. An example was given of the microeconomic stability of local small scale farmers in Tanzania being undermined by a foreign investor establishing an industrial scale bakery. Some of the subsidies issues are really human rights and development issues. There is a connection between international trade and investment law, sovereign debt, conduct of multi‐national corporations, human rights and climate change, which is not effectively addressed by existing international law instruments or systems. Existing instruments and mechanisms tend to impede action to address the most pressing issues of the day. CSR and the Global Value Chain Consider the compromises embedded in John Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Grave human rights violations need serious remedies, not only soft law voluntary codes and mediation, although these are incremental improvements over the existing legal instruments. The issue of corporate social responsibility is one that brings together many of these areas and should be studied with a view to developing enforceable standards of conduct and mechanisms to hold corporations accountable for human rights violations, bribery and corruption, and environmental degradation committed in their operations around the world. There will be a separate consultation workshop on this topic in the spring of 2015. 7 | P a g e The ILRP will lead and produce practical, balanced research that reflects the highest standards of international law expertise and draws on the knowledge and experience of public sector, private sector and academic experts. In order to pursue its research agenda the ILRP will build partnerships with individuals and institutions with interest and expertise on these issues. This first consultation workshop on emerging issues in international trade and investment law was an excellent first step in identifying the salient themes and experts. A working group will be created to shape the research agenda. The ILRP welcomes submissions about working group membership and its research work plan. 8 | P a g e ANNEX 4. Background on the International Law Research Program (ILRP ) of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) (le français suit) Centre for International Governance ‐ International Law Research Program Globalization and the increased interaction and integration of governments, peoples, environments, businesses, technologies, products and ideas present new governance challenges that call for a reassessment, revision and reinforcement of the international rule of law. As a multicultural and multilingual nation of indigenous peoples and immigrants, defined by good governance, rule of law and respect for human rights, Canada is well‐positioned to exercise global leadership in improving the international rule of law. With its global and regional networks of influence and an advanced economy reliant on trade and investment, information technology and innovation, and with actual or potential competitive advantage in finance, energy, extractive industries and the environment, Canada has much to contribute and much to gain through improving the globalized rule of law. CIGI’s International Law Research Program (ILRP) is unique in being a non‐partisan think tank straddling and leveraging academic, business and governmental perspectives, and focused on understanding and improving international law for better global governance. With funding of $60 Million over ten years from the Province of Ontario and a private donation, the ILRP is located at the award‐winning CIGI Campus in uptown Waterloo, Ontario. The ILRP’s vision is to strive to be the world’s leading international law think tank on international governance, with recognized impact on how international law is brought to bear on significant global issues. The ILRP mission is to seek to connect knowledge, policy and practice to build the international law framework ‐ the globalized rule of law ‐ to support international governance of the future. Its founding belief is that better international governance including a strengthened international law framework can improve the lives of people everywhere, increase prosperity, ensure global sustainability, address inequality and safeguard human rights, and promote a more secure world. The ILRP will focus on the areas of international law that are most important to global innovation, prosperity, sustainability and security. Through its International Law Research Program CIGI will provide opportunities for stakeholders in the public and private sectors to collaborate in advancing their knowledge and understanding of international law, and in exploring theoretical approaches to international law and testing them in practice. Benefitting from CIGI’s multi‐disciplinary research environment the ILRP will endeavour to find innovative and creative ways for international law to improve global governance. ILRP research will contribute to multi‐disciplinary work across CIGI’s other Programs, for example, providing international law support to CIGI research on Internet governance, Arctic governance and Climate change governance. The ILRP will develop concentric circles of knowledge and influence, from local and provincial to national and international spheres, connecting all with cutting edge, relevant and practical international law research and policy advice. As appropriate to further its research agenda the ILRP will engage individual international law experts from academia, the public and private sectors, law faculties and other relevant academic institutions, professional organizations, all levels of government, international governmental organizations, non‐governmental organizations and other international institutions. 9 | P a g e Through its networks of influence the ILRP will produce truly world‐class workshops, conferences, reports and policy briefs. It will become an established and internationally recognized international law think tank and centre of excellence focused on global governance. The ILRP envisions employing up to 19 Senior Fellow full time equivalents as research, consulting, and mentoring experts. Complementing this will be a cohort of Research Fellows and Post‐Doctoral Researchers, and up to 10 student researcher\practitioners and 20 graduate scholarship recipients. CIGI Campus residency requirements for all graduate scholarship recipients and post‐doctoral fellows will deepen and widen future international law research networks. In consultation with public, private and academic sector experts in international and transnational law the ILRP has developed a strategic plan focused on advancing knowledge and understanding in three vital areas of international law, detailed below: international economic law, international intellectual property law and international environmental law. International economic law International economic law is a vast field, which for purposes of research focus has been subdivided into three key areas. Within each there are many potential avenues to explore. 1. International and transnational governance and regulation of cross‐border insolvency and sovereign debt. 2. Multilateral harmonization of local regulations in the global value chain, including developments in private international law and adoption of the Ruggie principles on business and human rights. 3. Emerging issues in international trade and investment law, particularly: i) Governance of multilateral and preferential trade agreements ii) Assessing use of investor state arbitration in diverse contexts (case studies). International intellectual property law The ILRP’s study of international intellectual property (IIP) law will initially focus on four key aspects, but will evolve with the pace of innovation and related international law governance challenges: 1. Green\clean technology 2. Adaptation of IIP law frameworks for innovation and collaboration 3. Evaluating IIP rules and the advantages and disadvantages of multilateral vs. like‐minded or regional IP instruments (case studies) 4. Protecting IP rights while unlocking and commercializing IP; disseminating functional IIP knowledge to innovators. International environmental law The ILRP’s research on international environmental law issues aims to advance effective use of science‐
based international, transnational and national law to protect the environment, reverse climate change and achieve sustainable prosperity. 1. Assessing the efficacy of bilateral or regional environmental agreements vs. multilateral environmental agreements 2. International or transnational governance and regulation of the extractive industry and energy sector, including UNHCHR (John Knox) concept of environmental protection as a human right 3. Assessing international, transnational and local law‐based and market based approaches to reversing climate change (case studies). 10 | P a g e Interdisciplinary and integrated methodology In pursuing its research work the ILRP will employ interdisciplinary and integrated methodology to explore practical approaches, empirical case studies, analysis of the efficacy of international law regimes, and interdisciplinary research that considers the impacts on human security, rights and development. Furthermore, the ILRP will incorporate international law research of indigenous issues that cross‐cut the three areas of primary focus, for example: 1. Reconciling the protection and development of traditional knowledge with international intellectual property law frameworks; 2. Environmental protection, benefit sharing and prior informed indigenous consultation and consent in respect to energy and extractive industry developments in aboriginal territory. 3. Arctic governance to find effective international and transnational legal mechanisms to address emerging environmental, maritime, human security, economic, political and developmental issues in the North. Centre pour l’innovation dans la gouvernance internationale – Programme de recherche en droit international Sur fond de mondialisation, l’interaction et l’intégration grandissantes des gouvernements, des peuples, des environnements, des technologies, des produits et des idées suscitent des défis de gouvernance qui nécessitent de réexaminer et de renforcer la primauté du droit international. En tant que nation multiculturelle et multilingue formée de peuples autochtones et d’immigrants, qui adhère de surcroît aux principes de bonne gouvernance, à la règle de droit et aux droits de la personne, le Canada est tout désigné pour exercer un leadership mondial en la matière. Fort de ses réseaux d’influence planétaires et régionaux, d’une économie avancée fondée sur le commerce et l’investissement, les technologies de l’information et l’innovation, et d’atouts concurrentiels réels ou potentiels dans les secteurs des finances, de l’énergie, de l’extraction et de l’environnement, il pourrait ainsi richement contribuer à l’amélioration d’une règle de droit mondialisée et aurait tout à gagner de cette évolution. Le Programme de recherche en droit international (PRDI) du CIGI a ceci d’unique qu’il constitue un think tank non partisan qui tire parti des points de vue du monde universitaire, du secteur des entreprises et des milieux gouvernementaux pour approfondir la compréhension du droit international au profit de la gouvernance mondiale. Situé dans le Campus CIGI, établissement primé du centre‐ville de Waterloo (Ontario), il est financé par une aide de 60 millions de dollars sur 10 ans du gouvernement ontarien et par un don privé. Le PRDI vise à devenir le premier think tank mondial spécialisé dans l’application du droit international à la gouvernance mondiale et aux grands enjeux planétaires. Il a pour mission de conjuguer les savoirs, politiques et pratiques nécessaires à l’élaboration du cadre législatif international – soit la règle de droit mondialisée – qui fondera la gouvernance de demain. Persuadé qu’une gouvernance et un cadre ainsi améliorés favoriseraient la vie des populations, la prospérité, la durabilité, la réduction des inégalités, la protection des droits de la personne et la sécurité internationale, le PRDI privilégiera les domaines du droit international essentiels à l’innovation, à la prospérité, à la durabilité et à la sécurité planétaires. Par l’entremise du PRDI, le CIGI offrira aux acteurs des secteurs public et privé l’occasion d’accroître leur compréhension du droit international, d’en étudier diverses approches théoriques et de les soumettre à l’épreuve des faits. Misant sur l’environnement de recherche multidisciplinaire du CIGI, le PRDI examinera par quelles voies créatives et innovantes le droit international peut améliorer la gouvernance 11 | P a g e mondiale. Il contribuera ainsi aux travaux des autres programmes du CIGI, en étayant notamment la recherche sur la gouvernance de l’internet, de l’Arctique et du changement climatique. Le PRDI mettra en œuvre des cercles concentriques de savoir et d’influence qui s’étendront de l’échelon local et provincial aux sphères nationales et internationales, rassemblés autour d’une recherche de pointe et d’orientations stratégiques concrètes. Il fera appel à des spécialistes du droit international issus de monde universitaire, des secteurs public et privé, des écoles de droit et établissements d’enseignement pertinents, des organismes professionnels, de tous les ordres de gouvernement, des organisations internationales gouvernementales, des ONG et autres institutions internationales. S’appuyant sur ses réseaux d’influence, le PRDI organisera des ateliers et conférences de haut niveau et produira des documents et analyses de premier ordre qui en feront un think tank en droit international et un centre d’excellence en gouvernance mondiale de réputation globale. Il vise à embaucher jusqu’à 19 chercheurs principaux (équivalent temps plein) à titre d’experts en recherche, conseil et mentorat, soutenus par des assistants de recherche, des chercheurs postdoctoraux, une dizaine d’étudiants chercheurs/praticiens et 20 boursiers. À noter que l’exigence faite aux chercheurs postdoctoraux et boursiers de résider au Campus du CIGI favorisera l’expansion des réseaux de recherche en droit international. De concert avec des spécialistes du droit international et transnational des secteurs public et privé et du monde universitaire, le PRDI a élaboré un plan stratégique visant à enrichir les connaissances dans trois domaines clés (détaillés ci‐dessous) : droit économique, propriété intellectuelle et environnement. Droit économique international Face à l’ampleur de ce domaine, nous avons réparti nos travaux en trois volets dont chacun comporte une série d’éléments à explorer. 1. Gouvernance internationale et transnationale, réglementation de l’insolvabilité transfrontalière et des dettes souveraines. 2. Harmonisation multilatérale des réglementations locales dans la chaîne de valeur mondiale, y compris les développements du droit international privé et l’adoption des principes de Ruggie sur les droits de la personne et les entreprises. 3. Nouveaux enjeux du droit international et de l’investissement, notamment : iii) Gouvernance des accords commerciaux multilatéraux et préférentiels iv) Évaluation dans différents contextes de l’arbitrage entre États et investisseurs (études de cas). Droit international de la propriété intellectuelle (PI) Tout en évoluant au gré des innovations et des défis de la gouvernance du droit international, le PRDI commencera par examiner quatre aspects clés : 1. Technologies vertes/propres 2. Adaptation des cadres législatifs de PI aux fins d’innovation et de collaboration 3. Évaluation des règlements de PI et des avantages et inconvénients des instruments multilatéraux par rapport aux instruments régionaux ou similaires (études de cas) 4. Importance de protéger les droits de PI tout en libérant et en commercialisant la PI; diffusion de savoirs fonctionnels à l’intention des innovateurs. 12 | P a g e Droit international de l’environnement Le PRDI vise ici à promouvoir un droit international, transnational et national fondé sur l’usage efficace des sciences pour protéger l’environnement, inverser le changement climatique et implanter une prospérité durable. Il examinera pour ce faire les aspects suivants : 1. Efficacité des accords environnementaux régionaux et bilatéraux par rapport aux accords multilatéraux 2. Gouvernance internationale ou transnationale et réglementation de l’industrie extractive et du secteur de l’énergie, y compris le concept du HCDH (John Knox) de protection environnementale en tant que droit de la personne 3. Approches d’inversion du changement climatique internationales, transnationales, fondées sur des lois d’intérêt local et basées sur le marché (études de cas). Méthodologie interdisciplinaire et intégrée Le PRDI appliquera une méthodologie interdisciplinaire et intégrée à l’examen d’approches pratiques, à ses études de cas empiriques et à l’analyse des régimes de droit international, de manière à prendre en compte toute incidence sur les droits de la personne, la sécurité et le développement humains. Il intégrera de surcroît la recherche en droit international relative aux questions autochtones partout où elle croisera ses trois champs d’étude prioritaires, par exemple : 1. Protection et développement des savoirs traditionnels au sein des cadres législatifs de la propriété intellectuelle internationale 2. Protection de l’environnement, partage des avantages, consultation et consentement éclairé des Autochtones face aux activités des industries énergétique et extractive menées sur leurs territoires 3. Gouvernance de l’Arctique axée sur l’élaboration de mécanismes juridiques internationaux et transnationaux capables de traiter les nouveaux enjeux du Nord en matière environnementale et maritime, de sécurité humaine, d’économie, de politique et de développement. 13 | P a g e