In January 2027, the first Conference of the Parties to the new United Nations High Seas Treaty will take place. The meeting is expected to address key conflicts between marine conservation and ocean use in the context of climate change. The 2024 advisory opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on climate change is therefore once again attracting attention. Many observers had expected the opinion to clarify the relationship between ocean protection and utilisation in climate policy. Such clarification is particularly important in relation to emerging marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) technologies, which seek to enhance oceanic carbon drawdown in order to mitigate climate change. ITLOS confirmed that states are obliged to protect the ocean from pollution caused by atmospheric CO₂. However, it left open the question of whether mCDR should be regarded as marine pollution or as a contribution to marine environmental protection. This ambiguity could be mobilised politically to either promote or restrict mCDR. International organisations, EU institutions, and national authorities should therefore prepare for competing interpretations of the advisory opinion that may shape future climate and ocean governance.
The 2026 US–Israel–Iran war has produced what the International Energy Agency describes as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Brent crude rose from around $70 at the end of February to a peak of about $140 in early April before settling around $100 as of early June 2026. In a new Brief we argue that the significance of the oil shock lies not only in the price increase itself but in its timing.
The 2026 US–Israel–Iran war has produced what the International Energy Agency describes as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Brent crude rose from around $70 at the end of February to a peak of about $140 in early April before settling around $100 as of early June 2026. In a new Brief we argue that the significance of the oil shock lies not only in the price increase itself but in its timing.
The 2026 US–Israel–Iran war has produced what the International Energy Agency describes as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. Brent crude rose from around $70 at the end of February to a peak of about $140 in early April before settling around $100 as of early June 2026. In a new Brief we argue that the significance of the oil shock lies not only in the price increase itself but in its timing.
La désinformation climatique est devenue un outil mobilisé par certains États pour servir leurs stratégies d’influence. La Russie et les États-Unis illustrent comment les enjeux liés au climat peuvent être utiliser dans le cadre d’une guerre informationnelle, ciblant particulièrement l’Europe. La remise en cause de consensus scientifique et des scientifiques, le ciblage des politiques énergétiques et climatiques ainsi que l’instrumentalisation des événements climatiques extrêmes sont autant de leviers permettant à ces acteurs d’influencer les opinions publiques et de servir des intérêts économiques, géopolitiques et stratégiques.
Tour d’horizon des usages stratégiques de la désinformation climatique à travers les cas de la Russie et des États-Unis avec Mathilde Jourde, chercheuse à l’IRIS, co-directrice de l’Observatoire Défense et Climat et responsable du Programme Climat, environnement, sécurité.
L’article La désinformation climatique au service des stratégies d’ingérence : les cas de la Russie et des États-Unis est apparu en premier sur IRIS.