Browsing by Subject "climate change"

Climate migration raises both justice and human rights concerns, yet no existing treaty explicitly addresses it, leaving climate migrants in a legal limbo. This study assesses how the European Union's international protection system can evolve to effectively mitigate the vulnerability of climate migrants. The analysis incorporates the principle of non-refoulement from the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities in climate agreements. Using a legal doctrinal approach, the study analyses existing legal frameworks, uniquely integrating the perspective of vulnerability theory. This ethical framework emphasizes the universal vulnerability of individuals and seeks strategies to reduce vulnerability, rooted in societal structures and legal constructs. The study applies vulnerability theory specifically to the context of climate migration. Vulnerability analysis reveals that both the vulnerabilities driving migration and the uncertain legal status of climate migrants are products of the international community necessitating a collective response. The study centers on the 1951 Refugee Convention and the interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement by the European Court of Human Rights. It examines the right to life in the context of environmental disasters and its application to socio-economic rights. The research investigates the compatibility of the European Union’s international protection residence permit system with the non-refoulement principle and climate agreement burden-sharing principles. Relevant sources include recommendations from the United Nations Refugee Agency, decisions from the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, along with existing scholarly literature. The Qualification Directive (2011/95/EC) mirrors the refugee definition of the Refugee Convention. The study reveals that individuals seeking international protection due to the adverse effects of climate change may have legitimate fears of persecution when addressing climate change's adverse effects in the broader social policy framework. Additionally, the study argues that adopting a vulnerability-based approach, especially under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, can broaden the scope of the non-refoulement principle in the context of climate change and enhance substantive equality, addressing climate migrants' material deprivation in their countries of origin. However, the European Convention on Human Rights does not regulate residence permits; instead, they fall under European Union law. The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that subsidiary protection necessitates the deliberate infliction of severe harm by a specific actor and cannot be attributed to general deficiencies in the country of origin. This perspective diverges from the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights. To bridge the gap in current protections, the European Union should introduce a new category of residence permits for climate migrants, humanitarian protection, recognizing the connection between human rights and the environment. Such humanitarian protection would reflect fair burden-sharing, safeguard against refoulement, and address the vulnerability experienced by climate migrants within the framework of international human rights law.

The fashion industry is responsible for 8-10% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – if it continues to grow at the projected rate, by 2050 it will consume more than ¼ of the world’s carbon budget. In 2018, the United Nations Climate Change brought together 43 fashion industry representatives to develop a common approach to the industry’s combat against climate change. The Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action aims to address the industry’s issues on a global level by establishing targets to e.g. reduce the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions and to encourage the transformation towards the use of renewable energy sources throughout the value chain. The Charter, however, is not legally binding in any way – this raises questions regarding its credibility and its role as an instrument of regulation. The Charter is an example of voluntary industry-wide self-regulation; participation is voluntary, the targets were set by the original 43 signatories themselves and there are no methods for enforcement or holding actors accountable in case of non-compliance. These issues have been somewhat addressed in the Charter by e.g. tying it to other reputable initiatives and legislation, such as the Paris Agreement. The lack of accountability and enforcement methods have been partly compensated by e.g. requiring public reporting of certain greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of traditional enforcement methods (e.g. sanctions), the Charter relies heavily on informal methods, such as reputational pressure. While the Charter is undoubtedly a positive step towards a more sustainable fashion industry, its methods of enforcement and ensuring compliance leave room for improvement. A few studies have also been conducted in relation to the Charter’s targets, and it has been suggested that it may not be enough to address the climate impacts of the fashion industry adequately. The Charter is a promising start towards a more sustainable future but in order to tackle climate change, the fashion industry needs binding targets backed up by formal enforcement methods (e.g. commercially significant sanctioning).

The financial markets play a key role in promoting sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Why? Because these require investment, investment requires money, and money comes from the financial markets. After signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the EU solidified its commitment to combating climate change and promoting sustainable development. The EU must fill a massive investment gap to achieve its climate goals that exceeds its funding capabilities, and so private sector funding must be mobilised. As part of its new sustainability strategy in the 2018 Action Plan for Financing Sustainable Growth, the European Commission sets out a few measures to steer financial development in a more sustainable direction, among them the creation of a European Green Bond Standard (EU-GBS). The purpose of this thesis is to examine this forthcoming EU-GBS to understand what the standard entails and how it will promote sustainable investment and the transition towards a climate-resilient European economy. First, I look at green bonds as a financial instrument and how these are currently regulated, and I discuss from a regulatory theoretical perspective why this regulation has not been able to ensure the functioning of the green bond market. Then I examine the EU-GBS and compare it to existing standards, such as the Green Bond Principles and the Climate Bonds Standard. Subsequently, as the final form of the EU-GBS has not been decided to date, I discuss the potential forms it might take and how these might affect issuers and investors. Finally, keeping its environmental efficiency in mind, I ask whether the EU-GBS is appropriate considering its objectives. While green bonds, as any financial instrument, are regulated by securities market regulation, there is no statutory regulation that specifically addresses the green nature of bonds. Instead, issuers of green bonds can choose to adhere to a range of voluntary self-regulation measures, such as such as the Green Bond Principles and the Climate Bonds Standard. Nonetheless, these standards have failed to overcome the most prevalent barriers to green bond market development, mainly inconsistent labelling, confusion regarding what ‘green’ means, and the resulting risk of greenwashing. Contrary to the most adhered-to standards on the market, the EU-GBS introduces a clear and science-based definition of environmentally friendly projects through its link to the EU Taxonomy, thus creating a common understanding of what can be considered green. It also standardises the reporting requirements, which increases transparency and credibility, and introduces an external verification scheme to enhance investor confidence, thus strengthening the integrity of the market and promoting market growth. The EU-GBS is proposed to become a voluntary standard, but this makes little sense when considering that other voluntary standards have failed to address the risks that green bonds are facing. Leaving it up to the issuer to decide whether or not to comply to the EU-GBS seems like a missed opportunity for preventing greenwashing and bringing sorely needed coherence to the market. A more environmentally efficient approach could be the introduction of a comply-or-explain based regime for green bond labelling, allowing issuers some leeway in the adherence to the standard as long as they can provide adequate justification for any deviations. This flexibility would allow issuers to make adjustments based on their own needs, thus encouraging adherence. Finally, the EU-GBS could become mandatory legislation, which is the only guaranteed way of ensuring that all bonds labelled as green in fact have a positive environmental impact, eliminating greenwashing concerns. Additionally, a mandatory standard could introduce actionable rights to bondholders if they have been misled by an issuer. I conclude that, while the EU-GBS does introduce some welcome additions to the green bond market, namely a clear definition of what can be considered green as well as an accreditation scheme to ensure the credibility of green bond, a voluntary standard will not be enough to ensure the proper functioning of the green bond market. The green bond market needs stricter and legally enforceable rules to ensure that green bonds can fulfil their potential to finance the transition towards a sustainable economy and consequently their role in combating climate change.