Browsing by Author "Sarlos, Sinna"

The question of state responsibility in climate change is becoming more and more relevant, as climate change continues to have detrimental effects on both the environment and the people. Sovereign states, however, cannot be forced to act. Sovereignty provides the states with a freedom to stay passive in the fight against climate change. With climate change causing sea level rise and increasing the frequency of natural disasters, the universal human rights stand threatened by the effects. International human rights law does not mention climate change, but if it can be proven that it truly violates human rights, states would have a responsibility to address climate change, at least in the sense that they ought to protect the victims of disasters and slow onset events. International environmental law provides with a responsibility to prevent environmental harm under the no-harm principle. The responsibility to prevent climate change would require that the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change related environmental damage is sufficiently proven. The fact that climate change is partly natural and partly anthropological complicates this issue. The current climate change law does not appropriately address the sharing of responsibility to prevent climate change and compensate for damages caused by it. There are some principles, such as the polluter pays, beneficiary pays and ability to pay principles, which address the responsibility of those who pollute, those who benefit from the pollution, and the different levels of abilities to pay. From them, it follows that developed states ought to have a broader responsibility to pay than developing states, since they have polluted more, benefit more from the pollution, and have the means to pay more. The climate change regime is decades old, but it still fails to properly assign states with responsibilities to prevent climate change. Human rights law and environmental law compensate for some parts climate law lacks in, but the scientific uncertainties make the applicability controversial.