¹ Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, GA Res. 70, UN Doc. A/RES/70/1 (2015) [Transforming our World].

² Ibid.

³ For the historical development and core elements of the concept of sustainable development, see Jorge E. VIÑUALES, “Sustainable Development” in Lavanya RAJAMANI and Jacqueline PEEL, eds., Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021); Philippe SANDS and Jacqueline PEEL, eds., Principles of International Environmental Law, 4th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), at 217–29; Elizabeth FISHER, Bettina LANGE, and Eloise SCOTFORD, eds., Environmental Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), at 219–21; Maria LEE, EU Environmental Law, Governance and Decision-Making, 2nd ed. (London: Hart Publishing, 2014), at 57–80; David HUNTER, James SALZMAN, and Durwood ZAELKE, International Environmental Law and Policy, 3rd ed. (St. Paul, Minnesota: Foundation Press, 2006), at 171–8.

⁴ Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc A/CONF 48/14/Rev. 1, chapter I at 3–5.

⁵ Sumudu ATAPATTU and Shyami PUVIMANASINGHE, “Guidance from the Ground Up: Lessons from South Asia for Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals” in WANG Xigen, ed., The Right to Development: Sustainable Development and the Practice of Good Governance (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2019), 141 at 143. See also Sam ADELMAN, “The Sustainable Development Goals, Anthropocentrism, and Neoliberalism” in Duncan FRENCH and Louis KOTZÉ, eds., Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory, and Implementation (Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar, 2018), 15 at 21.

⁶ Atapattu and Puvimanasinghe, ibid., at 143, referring to Principle 4: “balance economic development with environmental protection”; Principles 13 and 14 integrated development planning while protecting the environment); On Principles 4 and 13; see Sands and Peel, eds., supra note 3 at 227–8.

⁷ World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), Chairman’s Foreword at IX–X.

⁸ Ibid., at 8. The report is often referred to as a turning point in the sustainable development concept. See Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke, supra note 3 at 178.

⁹ Scholars critique the WCED definition. Atapattu, and Puvimanasinghe, supra note 5 at 143 (it is a “vague” concept); Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke, supra note 3 at 175 (“satisfaction of human needs and aspiration is the major objective of development that ‘endanger nature systems’ in developing countries support of life on earth”), at 180 (“[w]hile the WCED focused on environmental and development as two faces of the same coin, subsequent debates have been on the basis that environmental (protection) is something related to the North and sustainable development to the South”); Adelman, supra note 5 at 25 (“[s]eeking to maximise acceptance of the concept, the WCED provided capitalism with a conceptual basis an ethical/normative justification for the commodification and monetisation of nature”).

¹⁰ Transforming our World, supra note 1 at Preamble.

¹¹ Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF151/26/Res.1(Vol 1) (1992), Annex 1.

¹² Alan BOYLE, and Catherine REDGWELL, Birnie, Boyle, & Redgwell’s International Law and the Environment, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), at 117, which refers to Principles 3–8.

¹³ Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development, Report of the World Summit for Social Development, UN doc. A/CONF166/9 (1995), chapter I, Resolution 1, Annex I. See also Atapattu and Puvimanasinghe, supra note 5 at 145, 149, and 150.

¹⁴ Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002, GA/CONF.199/20 (2002), chapter I, Resolution 1, Annex, para 5; Jamie BENIDICKSON, Ben BOER, Antonio Herman BENJAMIN and Karen MORROW, eds., “Introduction” in Environmental Law and Sustainability after Rio (Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar, 2011), 1 at 2.

¹⁵ Transforming our World, supra note 1, Declaration, para. 2.

¹⁶ Atapattu and Puvimanasinghe, supra note 5 at 141.

¹⁷ Sumudu ATAPATTU, “International Environmental Law and Soft Law: A New Direction or a Contradiction?” in Cecilia M. BAILLIET, ed., Non-State Actors, Soft Law, and Protective Regimes: From the Margins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 200 at 209 (referring to Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke, supra note 3 at 171).

¹⁸ French and Kotzé, supra note 5; Jonas EBBESSON and Ellen HEY, eds., The Cambridge Handbook on the Sustainable Development Goals and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022); Boyle, and Redgwell, supra note 12 at 129 (“Sustainable development represents a policy objective which can influence the outcome of cases, the interpretation of treaties, and the practice of states and international organisations, and has led to significant changes and developments in the existing law”); Kazuki HAGIWARA, “Enhanced De Facto Constraints Imposed by Non-Legally Binding Instruments and Interactions with Normative Environment: An Analysis of the Joint Statements for the Conservation and Management of Japanese Eel Stock” (2023) 1(13) Asian Journal of International Law 1 at 14 (“The sustainable development concept as ‘a de-facto constraint on policy-makers [frames] environmental policy debates [by creating] concrete targets for achieving a specific sustainable objective [through] individual non-legally binding instruments’”).

¹⁹ Dinah SHELTON, “Soft Law” in David ARMSTRONG, ed., Routledge Handbook of International Law (London: Routledge, 2009), 68 at 68; Gregory SHAFFER, and Mark A. POLLACK, “Hard and Soft Law” in Jeffrey L. DUNOFF and Mark A. POLLACK, eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 197 at 197; Sylvia I. Karlsson-VINKHUZEN, “Global Regulation through a Diversity of Norms: Comparing Hard and Soft Law” in David LEVI-FAUR, ed., Handbook on the Politics of Regulation (Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar, 2013), chapter 44; Andrew T. GUZMAN and Timothy MEYER, “Soft Law” in Eugene KONTOROVICH and Francesco PARISI, eds., Economic Analysis of International Law (Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar, 2016), chapter 5.

²⁰ Atapattu, supra note 17 at 202.

²¹ Ibid. See also Kenneth W. ABBOTT and Duncan SNIDAL, “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance” (2000) 54(3) International Organization 421 at 422; Hagiwara, supra note 18 at 13.

²² Alan BOYLE, “Soft Law” in Rajamani and Peel, supra note 3 at 420.

²³ Transforming our World, supra note 1, Declaration, para. 55.

²⁴ Laurence Boisson DE CHAZOURNES, “The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Rule of Law: A Propos SDG 6 on Access to Water and Sanitation” in American Society of International Law, ed., Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting: The Promise of International Law, Sustainable Development and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 143 at 143. See also Rakhyun E. KIM, “The Nexus between International Law and the Sustainable Development Goals” (2016) 25(1) Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 15 at 15–16; Riccardo PAVONI and Dario PISELLI, “The Sustainable Development Goals and International Environmental Law: Normative Value and Challenges for Implementation” (2016) 13(26) Veredas Do Direito 13; Werner SCHOLTZ and Michelle BARNARD, “The Environment and the Sustainable Development Goals: ‘We Are on Road to Nowhere”’ in French and Kotzé, supra note 5 at 228; Adamantia RACHOVITSA and Marlies HESSELMAN, “Introduction to the Special Issue: International Law for the Sustainable Development Goals” (2020) 2(1) Brill Open Law 1 at 4.

²⁵ Ed COUZENS and Tim STEPHENS, “The Prospects for a Truly Regional Asian Pacific Environmental Law?” (2017) 20 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 1 at 1.

²⁶ Transforming our World, supra note 1, Declaration, para. 18.

²⁷ Leslie-Anne DUVIC-PAOLI, “From Aspirational Politics to Soft Law? Exploring the International Legal Effects of Sustainable Development Goal 7 on Affordable and Clean Energy” (2021) 22 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1 at 7.

²⁸ David G. VICTOR, Kal RAUSTIALA and Eugene B. SKOLNIKOFF, eds., The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), see Introduction at 4.

²⁹ Ibid., at 3; Alice PALMER, “National Implementation” in Rajamani and Peel, eds., supra note 3 at 1024: (“So-called soft law in the domain of international environmental law is also a matter for implementation of international environmental law”).

³⁰ Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms: Guidance Note on Facilitating Integration and Coherence for SDGs Implementation, United Nations Development Programme (2017), at 7–13, [Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms]. See also, Anita BREUER, Julia LEININGER and Daniele MALEBRA, “Governance Mechanisms for Coherent and Effective Implementation of the 2030 Agenda” in Anita BREUER, Daniele MALERBA, Srinivasa SRIGIRI and Pooja BALASUBRAMANIAN, eds., Governing the Interlinkages between the SDGs (London: Routledge, 2023), 51 at 59–67.

³¹ Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms, supra note 30 at 11 (“The scope and ambition of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development are unprecedented and will require collaboration, innovative and incentive systems that facilitate cross-sectoral action and shared accountability across different ministries, agencies, levels of government and non-governmental stakeholders”). See examples infra notes 76, 77.

³² Transforming our World, supra note 1, Declaration, paras. 72 and 74. See also Godwell NHAMO and Vuyo MJIMBA, “Scaling Up SDGs Implementation: Down the Road to Fast Approaching 2030” in Godwell NHAMO, Gbadebo O. A. ODULARU and Vuyo MJIMBA, eds., Scaling up SDGs Implementation: Emerging Cases from State, Development and Private Sectors (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020), 3 at 9–13.

³³ Sands and Peel, eds., supra note 3 at 147.

³⁴ In this regard, Agenda 21 includes a chapter on international agreements and mechanisms as an important means to implement elements of sustainable development: UN Conference on Environment & Development, Agenda 21, 1992: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1992), chapter 39. However, international environmental law scholarship has recognized that countries may not always enact or revise domestic laws to implement international agreements in a timely fashion. See Daniel BODANSKY, “What is International Environmental Law?” in Daniel BODANSKY, ed., Art and Craft of the International Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 1 at 15.

³⁵ French and Kotzé, supra note 5 at 3, 4.

³⁶ Transforming our World, supra note 1, Declaration, para. 45.

³⁷ Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, “Sri Lanka Sustainable Development Act No 19 of 2017” (October 2017), online: www.srilankalaw.lk/YearWisePdf/2017/19-2017_E.pdf.

³⁸ Federal Sustainable Development Act (S.C. 2008, c. 33); An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act (S.C. 2019, c. 2).

³⁹ Supra note 9.

⁴⁰ Norichika KANIE, Steven BERNSTEIN, Frank BIERMANN and Peter M. HAAS, “Introduction: Global Governance through Goal Setting” in Norichika KANIE and Frank BIERMANN, eds., Governing through Goals: Sustainable Development Goals as Governance Innovation (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2018), 1 at 5.

⁴¹ Oran R. YOUNG, “Conceptualization: Goal Setting as a Strategy for Earth System Governance” in Kanie and Biermann, eds., supra note 40 at 33.

⁴² Atapattu, and Puvimanasinghe, supra note 5 at 149.

⁴³ Young, supra note 41 at 37.

⁴⁴ Frank BIERMANN, Thomas HICKMANN, Carole Anne SÉNIT, Marianne BEISHEIM, Steven BERNSTEIN, Pamela CHASEK, Leonie GROB, Rakhyun E. KIM, Louis J. KOTZÉ, Måns NILSSON, Andrea Ordóñez LLANOS, Chukwumerije OKEREKE, Prajal PRADHAN, Rob RAVEN, Yixian SUN, Marjanneke J. VIJGE, Detlef van VUUREN, and Birka WICKE, “Scientific Evidence on the Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals” (2022) 5(9) Nature Sustainability 795 at 796.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ Prajal PRADHAN, “A Threefold Approach to Rescue the 2030 Agenda from Failing” (2023) 10 National Science Review 1. See Therese BENNICH, Nina WEITZ and Henrik CARLSEN, “Scientific Approaches to SDG Interactions Analyses: The State of Play” in Breuer, Malerba, Srigiri and Balasubramanian, eds., supra note 30 at 19.

⁴⁷ A. Dan TARLOCK, “Ideas Without Institutions: The Paradox of Sustainable Development” (2001) 1(9) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 35 at 40.

⁴⁸ Ibid., at 39.

⁴⁹ John C. DERNBACH, “Targets, Timetables and Effective Implementing Mechanisms: Necessary Building Blocks for Sustainable Development” (2002) 27 William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 79 at 83.

⁵⁰ Andrea ROSS, “It’s Time to Get Serious – Why Legislation is Needed to Make Sustainable Development a Reality in the UK” (2010) 2 Sustainability 1101 at 1101, 1110.

⁵¹ Andrea ROSS, “Why Legislate for Sustainable Development? An Examination of Sustainable Development Provisions in UK and Scottish Statutes” (2008) 20(1) Journal of Environmental Law 35 at 35, 66. See also for examples of incorporating sustainable development in national legislation: Daniel Barstow MAGRAW and Lisa D. HAWKE, “Sustainable Development” in Daniel BODANSKY, Jutta BRUNNÉE and Ellen HEY, eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 613 at 627. In 2006, USA public land law incorporated sustainability through the National Park Service Organic Act 16 U.S.C. Section 1 (2006): Jerrold A. LONG, “Sustainability Starts Locally: Untying the Hands of Local Governments to Create Sustainable Communities” (2010) 10 Wyoming Law Review 1 at 8.

⁵² Ross, ibid., at 68.

⁵³ Pytrik Dieuwke OOSTERHOF, “Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals to Accelerate Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: The Current State of Play of Sustainable Development Goal Localization in Asia and the Pacific” (December 2018), online: ADB www.adb.org/publications/sdgs-implementation-2030-agenda-sustainable-development at 10.

⁵⁴ Working Together: Integration, institutions, and the Sustainable Development Goals: World Public Sector Report, United Nations Division for Public Administration and Development Management, and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/200 (2018), at iv.

⁵⁵ Global Sustainable Development Report [GSDR] 2019, United Nations (2019), at 30.

⁵⁶ Ibid.

⁵⁷ Jeffrey D. SACHS, Christian KROLL, Guillaume LAFORTUNE, Grayson FULLER, and Finn WOELM, eds., “Part 3: Policy Efforts and Monitoring Frameworks for the SDGs” in Sustainable Development Report 2021 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), at 41.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Ibid., at 79.

⁶⁰ Nhamo and Mjimba, supra note 32 at 13.

⁶¹ Stakeholder Engagement & the 2030 Agenda: A Practical Guide, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and United Nations Training Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) (2020), at 25 (“[T]he processes to decide the 2030 Agenda was characterized by an unprecedented participation of civil society and other stakeholders”).

⁶² Jeffrey D. SACHS, Guido SCHMIDT-TRAUB, Christian KROLL, Guillaume LAFORTUNE, Grayson FULLER and Finn WOELM, eds., “3—Policy and Monitoring Frameworks for the SDGs” in The Sustainable Development Report 2020: The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), at 50.

⁶³ Sachs et al., supra note 57.

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms, supra note 30 at 11.

⁶⁶ Yonglong LU, Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC, Martin VISBECK and Anne-Sophie STEVANCE, “Five Priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals” (2015) 520 Nature 432. See also, Breuer, Leininger and Malerba, supra note 30; Anita BREUER, Daniele MALERBA, Srinivasa SRIGIRI and Pooja BALASUBRAMANIAN, “Governing the Interlinkages Between the SDGs: Approaches, Opportunities and Challenges” in Breuer, Malerba, Srigiri and Balasubramanian, eds., supra note 30, chapter 1 at 5–9.

⁶⁷ S. SARVAJAYAKESAVALU, “Addressing Challenges of Developing Countries in Implementing Five Priorities for Sustainable Development Goals” (2015) 1(7) Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 1 at 2.

⁶⁸ Sachs et al., supra note 57 at 43.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, “Voluntary National Reviews at the 2021 High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Secretariat Background Note” (2021), online: HLPF https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/28317BN_HLPF_2021_Secretariat_VNR_Main_Messages.pdf.

⁷² Breuer, Leininger, and Malerba, supra note 30.

⁷³ Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms, supra note 30 at 7–12.

⁷⁴ Ibid., at 7.

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ Ibid., at 37–38. Germany used the government working channel to create departments responsible for its results. Indonesia arranged a National Coordination Team with a multistakeholder working mechanism headed by the State.

⁷⁷ Ibid., at 42–43, 46: Botswana (National Steering Committee), Brazil (National Commission), Pakistan (SDG Secretariat etc).

⁷⁸ Korea and Malta enacted their Sustainable Development Acts respectively in 2007 and 2012 and amended them in 2015 and 2019. This paper’s comparative study did not focus on these laws because the research revealed that the Sri Lankan SDA is modelled after the Canadian FSDA.

⁷⁹ FSDA, supra note 38.

⁸⁰ SDA, supra note 37.

⁸¹ Supra note 1 at paras. 82–91.

⁸² Nhamo and Mjimba, supra note 32 at 9–10 (UN provides guidelines and a deadline for the final VNR report and presentation); Boyle, and Redgwell, supra note 12 at 126 (HLPF oversees the SDG implementation); Handbook for the Preparation of VNR, Report by UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2024) (provides guidelines to prepare VNR). Contrarily, Biermann and Kanie stated the UN HLPF is still new and has to “prove its effectiveness” in Frank BIERMANN and Norichika KANIE, “Conclusion: Key Challenges for Global Governance through Goals” in Kanie and Biermann, eds., supra note 40 at 296.

⁸³ Biermann and Kanie, ibid.

⁸⁴ Dinah SHELTON, “Introduction: Law, Non-Law and the Problem of Soft Law” in Dinah SHELTON, ed., Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1 at 17.

⁸⁵ Ross, supra note 50.

⁸⁶ Tarlock, supra note 47.

⁸⁷ Philip ALLOTT, “The Concept of International Law” (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law 31 at 32.

⁸⁸ Infra note 114.

⁸⁹ The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (1978), Article 3, 4.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 13th Amendment, chap VIIA, Article 154A (1), (2) and Provincial Councils Act No. 42/1987; Constitution, art 154 G (1) and Schedule IX, List I, “the Provincial Council List”. (Each PC has the discretion to enact by-laws on subjects in the list. Since then, the Municipal Councils Ordinance 1947, Urban Councils Ordinance 1939, and Pradeshiya Sabhas Act 1988 are under the purview of PCs.)

⁹¹ Ibid., Provincial Council List, Section 37. PCs have the legislative authority to enact environmental by-laws “to the extent permitted by or any law made by the parliament”. In 1990, North-Western Province Environmental Statute 12/1990 was enacted. The NEA delegated some functions to local authorities by Section 12(1) of the 1980 Act.

⁹² In Weerawansa v The Attorney-General and Others [2000] 1 SriLR 387 at 408–9: (“article 27 (15) of the Constitution implies that the State must likewise respect international law and treaty obligations”); infra note 95 at 275–76.

⁹³ This has been affirmed by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court in Nallaratnam Singarasa v Attorney-General [2006] 2 SCSpl (LA) 182/1999. See also Nigel RODLEY, “The Singarasa Case: Quis custodiet…? A Test for the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct” (2008) 41(3) Israel Law Review 500; R.K.W GOONESEKERE, “The Singarasa Case – A Brief Comment” (2006) 17(25) Law and Social Trust Review 227. In Leelawathie v Minister of Defence and External Affairs [2007] 68 NLR at 487 (“despite being the signatory to UNDHR, it is not a part of the law as the country is a dualist”).

⁹⁴ Scholarship explored many judicial decisions from 1994. See Atapattu and Puvimanasinghe, supra note 5 at 157–62; Atapattu, supra note 17 at 216; Sumudu ATAPATTU, “The Emergence of Sustainable Development Jurisprudence in South Asia” in Marie-Claire Cordonier SEGGER and H.E. Judge C.G. WEERAMANTRY, eds., Sustainable Development Principles in the Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals: 1992–2012 (London: Routledge, 2017), 651 at 669–76; Shyami PUVIMANASINGHE, “The Role of Public Interest Litigation in Realizing Environmental Justice in South Asia” in Sumudu A. ATAPATTU, Carmen G. GONZALEZ and Sara L. SECK, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 137 at 145–9; Shyami Fernando PUVIMANASNGHE, “Towards a Jurisprudence of Sustainable Development in South Asia: Litigation in the Public Interest” (2009) 10 Sustainable Development Law & Policy 41 at 44–8; Camena GUNERATNE, “Using Constitutional Provisions to Advance Environmental Justice – Some Reflections on Sri Lanka” (2015) 11 Law, Environment and Development Journal 1; See also, Hunter, Salzman and Zaelke, supra note 3 at 470 (adopting international environmental principles contributes to customary international law).

⁹⁵ Bulankulama and Others v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Others, Decision of 2 June 2000, [2000] 3 SriLR 243, at 246–7, 320–21. This case involved a government-proposed foreign investment contract on phosphate mining in a historically and environmentally sensitive Eppawala area in Anuradhapura District. The court desisted from proceeding with the contract, assessing the economic, environmental, and social harm of the proposed agreement.

⁹⁶ Ibid., at 274–5.

⁹⁷ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary v. Slovakia), separate opinion of Judge Weeramantry, [1993] I.C.J. Rep. 7 at 78, which cited “Mahindagamanaya” (B.C. 306) pointing to sustainable development concept in the Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka. This historical record is in the “Mahāvaṃsa” (Sinhala: මහාවංශ Mahāvansha) [emphasis added] written by the Buddhist monk Mahanama at the Mahavihara temple in Anuradhapura during the fifth-sixth century CE (“Mahāvaṃsa” chap. 68 at 8–13. See, Boyle, and Redgwell, supra note 12 at 117 (In the case “the ICJ referred for the first time … the concept of sustainable development”); Vaughan LOWE, “Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments” in Alan BOYLE and David FREESTONE, eds., International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 19 at 19–25. (Lowe argues that Judge Weeramantry’s judgment implies the “normative value” of sustainable development); Hagiwara, supra note 18 at 16.

⁹⁸ C.G. WEERAMANTRY, Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future: a Report for the World Future Council (Colombo, Pannipitiya: Stamford Lake, 2009), at 126.

⁹⁹ Chunnakkam Case (Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam v. Central Environment Authority and Others), Decision of 4 April 2019, [2015] SCFR 141 at 63–5. An NGO petitioned this significant case against a foreign investment company for groundwater pollution caused by a thermal power plant, pursued under fundamental rights litigation per Article 12 of the constitution. Although Articles 17 and 126 limit fundamental rights petitions to “executive or administrative actions”, the court innovatively held the company accountable and charged a 20 million LKR compensation for affected residents. This marked the first instance where the Sri Lankan Supreme Court charged a private party in litigation, for environmental pollution, expanding Article 12 to include private individuals. The court’s decision was based on Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration – the Polluter Pays Principle.

¹⁰⁰ Parliament of Sri Lanka, “Index to Parliamentary Debates, Official Report” (vol. 255, 2017), at 25, 544, online: Sri Lanka Parliament www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/hansardvolumes/1536299448069513.pdf.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., at 514, 539.

¹⁰² Ibid., at 472, 500, 505.

¹⁰³ SDA, Sections 2(a)–(c).

¹⁰⁴ SDA, Sections 2, 11.

¹⁰⁵ SDA, Section 4(1) (SDC is composed of four ex-officio members, two members of the President’s own volition, one member nominated by the Prime Minister, two members nominated by the Minister of Sustainable Development, and three members from nine PC nominations; Constitution, Article 4(c) gives the highest appointment authority to the President. Generally, Ministers in charge of the subject appoint heads of statutory bodies/public cooperations).

¹⁰⁶ SDA, Sections 4, 10(a)–(o), 3(2), 25.

¹⁰⁷ SDA, Section 10(b).

¹⁰⁸ SDA, Section 11(3).

¹⁰⁹ SDA, Sections 12(1).

¹¹⁰ Constitution, supra note 89, Article 154.

¹¹¹ The conception of the FSDA was based on the report submitted to the Parliament by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development appointed under Section 15.1(1) of the Auditor General Act amended in 1995 (R.S.C. 1985 C. A-17). The private member bill on FSDA was tabled in 2007. See House of Commons Canada, “Federal Sustainability for Future Generations – A Report Following an Assessment of the Federal Sustainable Development Act” (June 2016), at 1–3, online: Parliament, Canada www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ENVI/report-2.

¹¹² FSDA, Section 3.

¹¹³ Toner, infra note 127 at 123.

¹¹⁴ In 2019, amendment: 2019 C. 2., Sections 2,3,5(f), 7(5), 8(1)a, 8(3), 9(4), 10(3), 11(3), 12(2).

¹¹⁵ FSDA, Section 2.

¹¹⁶ FSDA, Section 5(a).

¹¹⁷ Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (S.C. 1999, c. 33): (“[A]n Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development”).

¹¹⁸ FSDA, Section 9(3), (4).

¹¹⁹ FSDA, Section 8(1), (2).

¹²⁰ Supra note 111.

¹²¹ FSDA, Section 7(5).

¹²² FSDA, Section 10(1). See Constitution Act 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, C. 3 (UK) Sections 10–14, 58 (Governor is acting on advice given by the federal Cabinet and giving Royal Assent for a bill to become law. At the central level, the Governor in Council refers to the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council. Lieutenant Governors resemble the Governor General at the federal level).

¹²³ FSDA, Section 10(2).

¹²⁴ FSDA, Section 7.

¹²⁵ FSDA, Section 6.

¹²⁶ Constitution Act 1867 Parts I–V.

¹²⁷ Julie M. SIMMONS, “Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Environment” in Debora L. VANNIJNATTEN, ed., Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics: The Challenges of Austerity and Ambivalence, 3rd ed. (Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press, 2009), 130 at 131–2; Glen TONER, James MEADOWCROFT and David CHERNIAK, “The Struggle of the Canadian Federal Government to Institutionalize Sustainable Development” in VanNijnatten, ibid., at 124 (sustainable development is a substantive power of subnational governments).

¹²⁸ Constitution, supra note 89, Article 2 and Chapter XV, Articles 105–11. See also supra note 90 (Sri Lanka is a unitary country with—a central government and a central judiciary system. Legislative powers were delegated to PCs to enact by-laws only for the – Provincial Council List – remaining Article 2 as it is. PCs have no legislative power on the subjects in List II, Reserved List: e.g., “National Policy on all Subjects and Functions”, dealing with UN, treaty obligations, jurisdictions, court structure, and auditing government accounts.); Article 154 G (5), (7) (protection of the environment is included in both Provincial Council and Concurrent List. Parliament and PCs should obtain “consultation” reciprocally to make laws on the subjects in List III, “Concurrent List”).

¹²⁹ Supra notes 90, 91.

¹³⁰ SDA, Section 27; FSDA, Section 2.

¹³¹ SDA, Section 2; FSDA, Section 3.

¹³² SDA, Section 4(3). See supra note 105.

¹³³ SDA, Section 10.

¹³⁴ SDA, Section 10(b).

¹³⁵ SDA, Sections 11(4), (5).

¹³⁶ Constitution, supra note 89, Articles 153–54.

¹³⁷ SDA, Section 13.

¹³⁸ SDA, Sections 13, 14, 19.

¹³⁹ Sustainable Development Council, Sri Lanka, “Draft Strategy for Public Service Delivery” (February 2018), online: SDC www.sdc.gov.lk/sites/default/files/2019-07/Strategy%20for%20Public%20Service%20Delivery.pdf.

¹⁴⁰ Sustainable Development Council, Sri Lanka, “Sri Lanka Voluntary National Review on the Status of Implementing Sustainable Development Goals 2018” (June 2018), online: SDC https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/19677FINAL_SriLankaVNR_Report_30Jun2018.pdf.

¹⁴¹ Sri Lanka Stakeholder SDGS Platform, “Sri Lanka Voluntary Peoples Review on the Status of Implementing Sustainable Development Goals” (July 2018), online: https://ejustice.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SRI-LANKA-Voluntary-Peoples-Review-on-the-SDGs-to-HLPF-2018.pdf.

¹⁴² “Development of a National Policy and Strategy on Sustainable Development”, Sri Lankan Cabinet Memorandum, CP/19/2488/101/159, 10 September 2019.

¹⁴³ Office of the Cabinet of Ministers – Sri Lanka, Press Briefing of Cabinet Decisions, “Sustainable Sri Lanka 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan” (10 September 2019), online: Cabinet Office, Sri Lanka www.cabinetoffice.gov.lk/cab/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=49&lang=en&dID=10078.

¹⁴⁴ Sri Lankan Presidential Secretariat, Government Circular, “Formulation of Sustainable Development Strategies”, No. PS/SP/SB/C/22/2019 (3 October 2019) online: Sustainable Development Council, Sri Lanka www.presidentsoffice.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/15/PS_SP_SB_C_22_2019%20E.pdf.

¹⁴⁵ Supra note 141 at 12, infra note 170.

¹⁴⁶ Sustainable Development Council, Sri Lanka, “DRAFT National Policy and Strategy on Sustainable Development: for a sustainably developed Sri Lanka” (August 2020), online: Sustainable Development Council of Sri Lanka www.switch-asia.eu/site/assets/files/2592/draft_national_policy_and_strategy_on_sustainable_development.pdf.

¹⁴⁷ Sri Lankan Government, “National Policy Framework ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’”, online: Publications, Sri Lankan Government www.doc.gov.lk/images/pdf/NationalPolicyframeworkEN/FinalDovVer02-English.pdf.

¹⁴⁸ “Appointing a Steering Committee for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”, The joint Cabinet paper by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister 20/2064/310/017, 14 December 2020 approved on 4 January 2021 [2021 Report]. This report is not publicly available. The explanations are based on the joint Cabinet paper.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid. See also, Karina BARQUET, Linn JÄRNBERG, Ivonne Lobos ALVA, and Nina WEITZ, “Exploring Mechanisms for Systemic Thinking in Decision-making Through Three Country Applications of SDG Synergies” (2022) 17 Sustainability Science 1557 at 1565–7: Barquet et al.’s paper explains issues in Sri Lanka: “[M]ore ambitious intervention could help institutionalize a systems approach from the beginning and at the highest level of government, the stakes in the process could also delay or hinder progress due to opposition”.

¹⁵⁰ 2021 Report, supra note 148 which reads: “Countries including Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Nepal, Bangladesh, Philippines, Azerbaijan, Mexico, Portugal, Slovenia, etc. have created inter-ministerial committees”.

¹⁵¹ Minutes of the meeting by the Prime Minister Secretary, 15 March 2021. Following the decisions, government institutions were guided by Circular No. SDC/07/37 of 1 April 2021.

¹⁵² Sarah HANAN, “Sri Lanka’s national policy well aligned with UN SDGs: Chamindry Saparamadu” (15 January 2022) online: The Morning www.themorning.lk/articles/184507.

¹⁵³ Sustainable Development Council Sri Lanka, “Inclusive Transformation Towards a Sustainable Development for All, Second National VNR Sri Lanka 24 June 2022” (June 2022) https://sdc.gov.lk/sites/default/files/2022-07/VNR%202022_Final%20Report_Combined.pdf.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid., at 19.

¹⁵⁵ Parliament of Sri Lanka, “Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe elected as the 8th Executive President” (20 July 2022) online: Sri Lanka Parliament www.parliament.lk/en/news-en/view/2663/?category=6

¹⁵⁶ Department of National Planning, “The United Nations Sustainable development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) for the period of 2023–2027” (17 August 2022) online: Department of National Planning, Sri Lanka www.npd.gov.lk/index.php/en/2017-03-02-07-18-53/72-the-united-nations-sustainable-development-cooperation-framework-unsdcf-for-the-period-of-2023-2027.html.

¹⁵⁷ Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee Policy Decisions, “Identifying Nationally Appropriate Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Targets”, Circular No. NP/HRD/SDG/Gen/22 of 2 January 2023, online: Sustainable Development Council, Sri Lanka https://sdc.gov.lk/sites/default/files/2023-01/Identifying%20Nationally%20Appropriate%20SDGs%20Targets.PDF.

¹⁵⁸ Supra note 146.

¹⁵⁹ Linn JÄRNBERG, Nina WEITZ, Aron MALTAIS, and Henrik CARLSEN, “Interactions among the Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka: A Systemic Assessment”, Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI Report, 2021 at 46.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid.

¹⁶¹ Conversely, some scholars argue that “[T]he pandemic has also opened a short-lived and narrow window of opportunity for sustainable transformation”, see Prajal PRADHAN, Daya Raj SUBEDI, Dilip KHATIWADA, Kirti Kusum JOSHI, Sagar KAFLE, et al., “The COVID‐19 Pandemic Not Only Poses Challenges, but Also Opens Opportunities for Sustainable Transformation” (2021) 9 (7) Earth’s Future 1, at 2, online: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF001996. See also, Breuer, Malerba, Srigiri and Balasubramanian, supra note 66 at 2; The Ministry of Health Sri Lanka, “Strategic Preparedness, Readiness and Response Plan to End COVID – 19 Emergency in 2022” (July 2022), at 9–24, online: Ministry of Health Sri Lanka www.health.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SPRP-2022-23.08.2022.pdf (Sri Lanka showed strong multi-stakeholder partnerships during the pandemic, including quarantine centers, food, medicines, hygiene and social security. SDG planning and future crises can benefit from these experiences); Sri Lanka enacted a new law: The Coronavirus Diseases 2019 (COVID-19) (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 17 of 2021, which provides provisions concerning situations wherein people are unable to perform certain actions required by law to be prescribed within the period due to COVID-19 circumstances.

¹⁶² Ross, supra note 50; John C. DERNBACH and Joel A. MINTZ, “Environmental Laws, and Sustainability: An Introduction” (2011) 3 Sustainability 531 at 532.

¹⁶³ Ross, supra note 50 at 1117.

¹⁶⁴ Ibid., at 1119.

¹⁶⁵ Biermann and Kanie, supra note 82; Steven BERNSTEIN “The United Nations and the Governance of Sustainable Development Goals” in Kanie and Biermann, eds., supra note 40 at 220; Dernbach, supra note 162 at 532.

¹⁶⁶ Supra notes 90, 91, and 128.

¹⁶⁷ SDA, Section 10(b).

¹⁶⁸ Supra notes 128, 91 (although the PCs have no power over “National Policy”, inter-agency coordination and the contribution of the sub-national government are essential in implementing the NPSSD. Moreover, PCs have the legislative power to make their own environmental statutes).

¹⁶⁹ Yet the PCs are not functional unless there is an amendment of the Provincial Council Elections Act 02/1988. In 2018 Parliament rejected the delimitation report which should have been approved with a two-thirds majority in terms of Article 3A (11) of the Act, as seen in the Parliament of Sri Lanka, “Report of the Delimitation Committee is not approved by the Parliament” (24 August 2018) online: Sri Lanka Parliament www.parliament.lk/news-en/view/1579; Constitution, supra note 89, Article 154C where the PCs are functioning under the Governors who are responsible for executive functions; Supreme Court held in a recent five-benched judgment, the role of the PCs will not be fulfilled by the Governors appointed by the President “when such council has not been constituted in accordance to the law”, see In Re the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill [2021] S.C.S.D. Nos. 04/2021, 05/2021, 07/2021 to 23/2021, at 22–23.

¹⁷⁰ Uchitha De ZOYSA, Prasanthi GUNAWARDENA, and Asoka GUNAWARDENA “Localising the Transformation in The New Normal, A Domestic Resource Mobilization Framework for Sustainable Development Goals in Sri Lanka” (2020) Janathakshan (GTE) Ltd and the Centre for Environment and Development at 5–6.

¹⁷¹ Supra note 153 at 18 “The inclusive and participatory process adopted for the second VNR with the direct engagement of a large number of stakeholders at both national and sub-national level including government, private sector, international development partners, civil society and the academia”.

¹⁷² David G. VICTOR, Kal RAUSTIALA and Eugene B. SKOLNIKOFF, eds., The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998), at 21; Duncan FRENCH, “The Global Goals: Formalism Foregone, Contested Legality and ‘Re-Imaginings’ of International Law” in Zeray YIHDEGO, Melaku Geboye DESTA, and Fikremarkos MERSO, eds., Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law 2016 (Springer 2017), 151 at 163; Breuer, Leininger and Malerba, supra note 30 at 57.

¹⁷³ SDA, Section 12(1).

¹⁷⁴ SDA, Section 10.

¹⁷⁵ See e.g., Nhamo and Mjimba, supra note 32 at 10 (“there remains challenges in reaching out to Parliaments and working towards policy coherence for SDGs”). See also, Boyle and Redgwell, supra note 12 at 126 (“states should be legally accountable for achieving sustainability, whether globally or nationally, then the criteria for measuring this standard must be made clear, as must the evidential burden for assessing the performance of individual states”); ibid., at 129 (“Even if there is no legal obligation to develop sustainability, there may nevertheless be law ‘in the field of sustainable development”’). See also, Biermann and Kanie, supra note 82 (no barrier to SDGs “becoming part of legal regimes … including subglobal legal systems”).

¹⁷⁶ United Nations Sri Lanka, United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework for Sri Lanka 2023–2027 (Sri Lanka: United Nations, 2022), online: UN Sri Lanka https://srilanka.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/UNSDCF_2022-2030_eVER_Compressed.pdf at 11, 21–26, 33.

¹⁷⁷ Jeffrey D. SACHS, Guido SCHMIDT-TRAUB, Christian KROLL, Guillaume LAFORTUNE, Grayson FULLER, and Finn WOELM, eds., supra note 62 at 27; Jeffrey D. SACHS, Christian KROLL, Guillaume LAFORTUNE, Grayson FULLER, and Finn WOELM, eds., supra note 57 at 11; Jeffrey D. SACHS, Guillaume LAFORTUNE, and Grayson FULLER, eds., “Part 2. The SDG Index and Dashboards” in Sustainable Development Report 2024 (Paris and Dublin: Dublin University Press, 2024), at 21.