Legal Remedies to Combat Climate Change
We have seen the first concrete signs of an end to coal and fossil fuel subsidies. Promises to start tackling methane emissions, which have great potential to slow climate change. Promises to end deforestation – not new, yes, but this time backed by real money. A commitment to double climate adaptation financing in developing countries. The finalization of the Paris Regulation with an agreement on Article Six around carbon markets. A shift in the engagement and role of the private sector, for example the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. The most important in the European context is undoubtedly the Dutch decision in the Urgenda case. The Court of Appeal in The Hague has now ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the Dutch government to take more effective action against climate change. The decision commits the government to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020. The legal basis for the court`s decision was the state`s duty of care: the court found that insufficient climate change mitigation was a dangerous breach of that duty.
It is particularly noteworthy that the Court has regarded the current state of climate research as a concrete duty of state action. He argued that a government`s duty to avoid climate change that affects life and health requires the adoption of an emissions reduction trajectory based on the two-degree target set by the IPCC. The decision was made before the publication of the IPCC special report, which clearly recommends a 1.5°C target – if this had not been the case, would the decision have gone even further? Legislation should create favourable conditions for investment in climate-resilient and nature-friendly development, including clear reporting and reporting frameworks and harmonised taxonomies for sustainable investments. Section 7.4.1 examines whether excessive emissions of greenhouse gases could constitute a violation of a norm of customary international law – the principle of non-harm – and therefore entail the obligation to make reparation for damage caused to the territory of other States. Section 7.4.2 discusses the treaty-based regime of international climate law. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, we avoid any discussion of other treaty-based regulations, such as the marine pollution provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the work of the International Law Commission for the Protection of the Atmosphere. Given the far-reaching nature of the climate challenge, effective federal policies are needed to achieve deep and long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience across the U.S. economy.
Even without a comprehensive federal approach, the federal government can help accelerate progress for cities, states, and businesses. Federal decision-makers have a number of policy instruments at their disposal: According to a recent World Bank reference manual, climate change framework legislation can provide a solid legal basis for litigation. Climate change litigation allows the public to hold the government to account and demand more ambitious climate goals or more decisive action. Accountability: Policies subject to public scrutiny are more likely to be designed and implemented in the best interests of current and future generations. This is particularly important in the context of climate change, which requires long-term commitment from stakeholders and where inaction could have devastating consequences. A similar case was brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy supplier RWE. A German regional court dismissed the action because it concluded that the plaintiff had not proved that RWE was legally responsible for protecting the city of Huaraz from flooding and because there was no direct causal chain. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint, which was dismissed on the grounds of unclear causation and inadequacy. The case has since been referred to the Higher Regional Court in Hamm, where it was finally admitted in November 2017 and has now entered the hearing of evidence (see also chapter by Frank et al. 2018). Public litigation related to climate change has often focused on a state`s commitment to mitigate climate change rather than the issue of opportunity, loss and damage. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v.
The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants. Another example: in 2015, a decision of the District Court of The Hague in the case of Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands concluded that the Government of the Netherlands had failed to meet its obligation under international law to mitigate climate change and requested it to take measures to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 based on 1990 levels. This decision is currently under appeal and the final decision is pending at the time of publication. Many of the climate measures adopted by the Obama administration will be reviewed and possibly reversed by the Trump administration. The impact of climate change on the perception of human rights is widely recognized (e.g. the preamble to the Paris Agreement). The UN Human Rights Council, for example, has pointed out that “the negative effects of climate change have a number of effects.
for the effective enjoyment of human rights” (recital 8 2015). Various regional and international human rights laws affected by the L&D include the right to life (e.g. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 6; see also Human Rights Committee 2017, paragraph 65), the right to property (Protocol 1 to the ECHR, Art. 1), the right to a clean environment (African Charter on Human and Peoples` Rights, art. 24) and the right to: enjoy their own culture (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 27). Nevertheless, human rights laws have generally not been helpful in the fight against L&D. While States are obliged to take positive measures to protect and fulfil the rights of individuals within their territory, this obligation is limited to their available resources. More importantly, it is well known that the obligation to protect human rights is limited to persons within the jurisdiction of States or, at most, to persons under their effective control (see, for example, Al-Skeini v. the United Kingdom).
From a legal point of view, States are therefore not obliged to take into account the impact of their policies on the enjoyment of human rights outside their jurisdiction or effective control. Effective federal policies are needed to achieve deep and long-term reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and build climate resilience. C2ES works with federal decision-makers to promote understanding of climate impacts and build support for practical solutions that benefit the environment and the economy. Learn more. Thank you to the Law Society Council of the United Kingdom for giving me the opportunity to speak today about the role of legislative reform in tackling climate change. With regard to climate change, human rights are relevant on two levels. First, climate action must be in line with human rights principles. [1] Second, the question arises as to the extent to which anthropogenic climate change itself constitutes a violation of human rights. It is this topic that is the subject of this article.
In the case of climate change, which poses a direct threat to several human rights, the State therefore has a duty to take active measures to avoid climate change. The State must prevent, as far as possible, negative impacts on human rights and ensure that all people can adapt to climate change in the best possible way. Constitutional complaint The plaintiffs who have appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court also believe that their fundamental rights have been violated by Germany`s inadequate climate policy. They see it as the federal government`s duty to systematically combat global warming, as heat waves and the resulting natural disasters are already violating the right to life, health and property.
