The benefits of a ‘holistic’ approach to transitional justice are enhanced by considering how synergies between different transitional mechanisms may be optimized. Drawing upon multiple examples, this article explores the potential contribution of truth seeking to reparation efforts at a normative, institutional and operational level. The article emphasizes the importance of an awareness of the reparative potential of truth seeking on the part of those implicated in its design and implementation, as well as an appreciation of the influence of contextual factors on a delicate process. It cannot be conceived of simply as a technocratic exercise, but as an inherent part of empowering victims.

This chapter considers the interaction of some of the applicable norms related to liability and reparation for environmental damage in a post-conflict setting, including human rights and humanitarian law norms (including precedents) and their interaction with each other, with a focus on the potential consequences for victims. Using displacement as a specific case study, the discussion regarding potential consequences is supported by the learning that may be drawn from precedent reparations schemes, including those implemented in a ‘transitional justice’ framework as part of an attempt to afford ‘justice’ for breaches of human rights and humanitarian law (whether related to the environment or otherwise). The chapter considers some of the potential challenges of this interaction, particularly for justice initiatives, and particularly reparations schemes, experienced in the aftermath of conflict, such as constructing a coherent post-conflict narrative, restitution (or ‘truth’), awarding reparation (including ‘restitution’), and reconciliation as part of ‘peacebuilding’.

In 2015, States concluded the landmark Paris Agreement, which committed to a long-term goal of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. The Paris Agreement galvanises all signatory nations in a common cause — combating climate change and adapting to and investigating its effects, and with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort. The goals of the Paris Agreement will only be achieved through massive investment in pursuit of a common objective. According to the International Finance Corporation, an estimated US$90 trillion investment is required to implement the Paris Agreement. The current regime of international investment agreements (IIAs) provides an invaluable opportunity to promote the investment required to achieve the Paris Agreement objectives, including mitigation, adaptation and transition from fossil fuels. However, users must take care to ensure that investment is, in fact, protected and encouraged, and to maintain critical progress in promoting international climate change policy. ICSID is one of the five arms of the World Bank Group, which recognises that “[c]limate change is a threat to the core mission of the World Bank Group”. The ICSID Convention is also designed to promote international private investment. As such, ICSID sits at an important nexus in this discussion. This article: (i) provides an overview of several influential arbitration decisions relating to international environmental disputes, and the way in which the existing climate change regime uses arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism; (ii) examines the evolution of investment treaties, prior decisions, especially in the field of renewable energy, and the tools available within IIAs for tribunals to promote the Paris Agreement objectives; (iii) discusses what arbitral institutions have done to date, in terms of tools, procedures, rules and other mechanisms, to promote climate change expertise and facilitate the resolution of disputes in a way that is consistent with climate change concerns; and (iv) considers ICSID's position as an arm of the World Bank, particularly in light of the WBG Climate Change Action Plan commitment to scaling up climate action and aligning internal processes with intentionally agreed climate change goals.

This article examines the invocation and application of universal principles regarding reparation for moral damage across three different`sub-systems' of international law: international human rights law, international criminal law and international investment law. The extensive invocation of certain principles drawn from a state-to-state context, including in scenarios implicating non-state actors, suggests a degree of universality. Yet, this conclusion is challenged by the variety of approaches taken by bodies constituted under and applying different international law specialisms. The context and mandate of the body in question, as well as the exigencies of particular situations, affect the extent to which universal principles are followed in practice. The considerations underlying the form and standard of reparation, and the ultimate outcome, for example, serve to demonstrate some of the tensions between universality and cosmopolitanism. There is a growing focus on reparation as a modality and mechanism of justice. The effectiveness of reparation in this role is tied to the extent to which it responds to claimants/petitioners/victims' needs. While universality may play a role in inter alia promoting certainty and conserving resources across a varied international law landscape, a strict approach may undermine the responsiveness of reparation as a measure of justice in different subsystems and thus of the value of a more cosmopolitan world that opens up avenues for redress for a variety of identities.

No abstract