Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation
The Paris Agreement provides that States ‘should respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights’ in ‘taking action to address climate change’. Should therefore States be held responsible for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in breach of fundamental obligations, that...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Springer
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/26891 |
id |
ftunivnewengland:oai:rune.une.edu.au:1959.11/26891 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivnewengland:oai:rune.une.edu.au:1959.11/26891 2023-08-27T04:10:17+02:00 Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation Quirico, Ottavio School of Law orcid:0000-0001-8268-7501 2018-07 https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/26891 en eng Springer 10.1007/s40802-018-0110-0 https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/26891 une:1959.11/26891 International Law (excl. International Trade Law) Journal Article 2018 ftunivnewengland 2023-08-10T19:52:55Z The Paris Agreement provides that States ‘should respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights’ in ‘taking action to address climate change’. Should therefore States be held responsible for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in breach of fundamental obligations, that is, the duties to respect, protect and fulfil first, second and third generation human rights? The key cases of the Inuit Petitions to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Kivalina demonstrate that there are serious objective and subjective impediments to holding a State responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, the decision of the Hague District Court in Urgenda has the potential to prompt a paradigm shift, whereby the evolution from first to second and third generation human rights allows streamlining fundamental issues of causation, extraterritoriality, attribution of responsibility and policy discretion. It is therefore arguable that the international recognition of a human right to a sustainable environment would require the plaintiff to only demonstrate direct causation, instead of indirect causation, thus fundamentally shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. Furthermore, such a right would allow attributing responsibility pro rata, based on minimum reduction targets outlined in the UNFCCC regime, overcoming issues of extraterritoriality and policy discretion. The human right to a sustainable environment entails asserting the fundamental nature of the no-harm rule. Article in Journal/Newspaper inuit Research UNE - University of New England at Armidale, NSW Australia Rata ENVELOPE(19.216,19.216,69.928,69.928) |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Research UNE - University of New England at Armidale, NSW Australia |
op_collection_id |
ftunivnewengland |
language |
English |
topic |
International Law (excl. International Trade Law) |
spellingShingle |
International Law (excl. International Trade Law) Quirico, Ottavio School of Law orcid:0000-0001-8268-7501 Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation |
topic_facet |
International Law (excl. International Trade Law) |
description |
The Paris Agreement provides that States ‘should respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights’ in ‘taking action to address climate change’. Should therefore States be held responsible for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in breach of fundamental obligations, that is, the duties to respect, protect and fulfil first, second and third generation human rights? The key cases of the Inuit Petitions to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Kivalina demonstrate that there are serious objective and subjective impediments to holding a State responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. By contrast, the decision of the Hague District Court in Urgenda has the potential to prompt a paradigm shift, whereby the evolution from first to second and third generation human rights allows streamlining fundamental issues of causation, extraterritoriality, attribution of responsibility and policy discretion. It is therefore arguable that the international recognition of a human right to a sustainable environment would require the plaintiff to only demonstrate direct causation, instead of indirect causation, thus fundamentally shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. Furthermore, such a right would allow attributing responsibility pro rata, based on minimum reduction targets outlined in the UNFCCC regime, overcoming issues of extraterritoriality and policy discretion. The human right to a sustainable environment entails asserting the fundamental nature of the no-harm rule. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Quirico, Ottavio School of Law orcid:0000-0001-8268-7501 |
author_facet |
Quirico, Ottavio School of Law orcid:0000-0001-8268-7501 |
author_sort |
Quirico, Ottavio |
title |
Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation |
title_short |
Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation |
title_full |
Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation |
title_fullStr |
Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Climate Change and State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: Causation and Imputation |
title_sort |
climate change and state responsibility for human rights violations: causation and imputation |
publisher |
Springer |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/26891 |
long_lat |
ENVELOPE(19.216,19.216,69.928,69.928) |
geographic |
Rata |
geographic_facet |
Rata |
genre |
inuit |
genre_facet |
inuit |
op_relation |
10.1007/s40802-018-0110-0 https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/26891 une:1959.11/26891 |
_version_ |
1775352192044105728 |