At only 9 years old, Zhonghua picked up a magazine in her hometown in China and read about global warming. It made a lasting impression. She rarely ate beef during her teenage years after learning that it harmed the environment. ‘The reality of the climate crisis hit me at a very young age, and it has continued to inspire me as an academic,’ she says. For her PhD at the Amsterdam Law School, Zhonghua researched the role of international law in fighting climate change. 

Why are you focusing on international law?

‘It has already been proven that companies are responsible for climate change. Yet, companies continue to deny that responsibility. I wanted to know why international law isn’t effectively doing something about it.’

Is international law just not fit to address polluting corporations?

‘History shows that the use of international law depends heavily on what people assume it is capable of. We currently tend to think of international law as a matter for states. But if we look at history, which I did in my thesis, you can see that international law has much more potential. The assumption is that private companies are regulated by domestic law. But that is exactly what these are: assumptions. History reminds us that international law has, in the past, sought to regulate transnational corporations through a code of conduct.’

Why is international law underused?

‘Corporations are seen as economically important. That is why international law is mainly used to impose obligations on states for climate protection and not so much on corporations. By staying silent on corporate responsibility, international law is legitimising their current position. On top of that, many of us are influenced by certain corporate agendas on climate denial, and by claims about the very high cost of phasing out something like coal. Companies warn us that people will lose their jobs. My research helps counter that economic argument. Are our daily expenses really increasing because of climate action? Or is the very argument about the cost of climate actions dependent on certain assumptions? I make the point that international law is crucial in shaping certain assumptions about climate actions. The prices of energy and carbon units, for example, are constructed by international law and international relations. And I argue that, in the process, international law is solidifying hegemonic powers.’

What more is international law capable of?

‘With international law, we can achieve many things that we currently are not. We can adopt more legally binding standards to lower carbon emissions. The Paris Agreement doesn’t really do that; it says states can set their own goals. There have already been efforts to make these requirements more binding. Secondly, international law can pursue a collective goal, such as protecting the climate. I do not want to sound nostalgic, but history shows that international law can have a bigger goal than protecting markets and that it can pursue social and environmental goals.’

Are you hopeful corporations will be more restricted by international law?

‘I distinguish hope from optimism. Stubborn optimism, I think, can be dangerous. It suggests we can carry on happily with our lives during a climate crisis. That kind of mindset is dangerous because it refuses to think about structural problems, such as corporate power. It makes you lose sight of the urgent need to tackle climate change. Hope, on the other hand, requires you to actively make choices and it comes with a sense of responsibility. We need to use our agency to maintain that hope. In that sense, I am hopeful. I believe in the work I am doing and in the international legal community. We need to keep that hope alive, even if things happen slowly.’