INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE (original) (raw)

Environmental Justice and International Environmental Law

2013

Environmental justice lies at the heart of many environmental disputes between the global North and the global South as well as grassroots environmental struggles within nations. However, the discourse of international environmental law is often ahistorical and technocratic. It neither educates the North about its inordinate contribution to global environmental problems nor provides an adequate response to the concerns of nations and communities disproportionately burdened by poverty and environmental degradation. This article examines some of the root causes of environmental injustice among and within nations from the colonial period to the present, and discusses several strategies that can be used to integrate environmental justice into the broader corpus of international law so as to promote social and economic justice while protecting the planet’s natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

Towards a Theory of Global Environmental Justice

Theories of global justice and environmental justice, have developed parallel theories over the last two decades. Both have been motivated by a social justice consideration for the worst off. Increasingly, theories of global justice are tackling questions of environmental concern, and theories of environmental concern have begun to investigate global ramifications of their claims. This paper presents a preliminary investigation into how insights developed on the global justice side can be fruitfully applied to the question of global environmental justice, and can thereby begin to bridge the gap.

International Law and Environmental Justice

Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2013

Universal declaration of human rights with emphasis on Non-discrimination between people and right on food for all, struggle to distribute justice for human. Live in healthy environment is one of fundamental rights for human But the development of civilization, especially since the industrial revolution accelerated the degradation of the environment. Human efforts to protect the environment have intensified since the late twentieth century but most of them have focused on prevention environment destruction rather than its influences on human. Focusing of environmental treaties instead of preventing damage to people, restrict harmful behavior for environment. Similarly, principles of international environmental laws are prevention of Damage to the environment and responsibility for its compensation. In contrast, international human rights completely focus on human; nevertheless, only in two human rights treaties, the right to a healthy environment, are binding. There are no mechanisms for Compensation for victims of human rights violations. Distribution of the sources of pollutants in the world is indicative environmental injustice. Not only in the world but also in the inside of countries, the sources of pollutants are closer to areas which people of color and lower income live. Some believe that environmentalism as new form of imperialism is formed in which developed countries are trying to impose their preferences and priorities concerning environment to developing countries. Also World Bank and IMF impose to developing countries to accept wastes which are exported by developed countries and accept polluter industries in their countries. Environmental justice in connection with procedural justice and political justice are issues that can investigate these claims. This article examines the lack of binding Law or judicial procedure in international law to compensate victims of environmental injustice especially in peace time and discusses Legal remedies in international law against environmentalism in relation with taxonomy of environmental justice.

Navigating the Waters: International Law, Environment and Human Rights

PETITA: JURNAL KAJIAN ILMU HUKUM DAN SYARIAH

Over the years, the relationship between the environment and human rights has received global attention. The connection between the individuals, environment and international law is indispensable. However, domestic environmental activities and globalisation set domino effects on climate change where the actions within one jurisdiction affect the environment of neighbouring states. Sovereignty, state obligations and human rights are instruments that can regulate the protection of the environment. Set against this background, this paper will assess the contribution of international law to the protection of the environment, particularly the extent of enforceability of general state obligations through the 'no harm rule.' Arguably, transboundary harm is inevitable in most environmental activities. Therefore, the engaging state is obligated to take measures known as due diligence to regulate the transfer of transboundary harm. The threshold for these environmental activities is s...

Climate justice and the international regime

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2010

Contestations over justice and equity in the climate regime provide the most striking evidence of the quest by relevant actors to ensure that institutions for global environmental governance are based on widely shared ethical standards of responsibility and fairness. This review article examines recent policy debates and literature on distributive justice and the climate regime and highlights some areas of key research. The review indicates that while discussions on climate justice have gained ascendency within the international regime circle with noticeable impacts, a lot remains to be clarified about the status of justice concepts and how to best design polices that reconcile moral ideals and power politics. Hence, although the current regime performs well in terms of recognizing the need for and incorporating concepts of distributive justice between the rich and poor countries; it has not provided a basis to sufficiently upset the underlying forces and abiding structures of global inequality. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website

The influence of justice theories on international climate policies and measures

Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law, 2012

While the justice implications of climate change are well understood by the international climate regime, solutions to meaningfully address climate injustice are still emerging. This article explores how a number of different theories of justice have influenced the development of international climate regime policies and measures. Such analysis is undertaken by examining the theories of remedial justice, environmental justice, energy justice, social justice and international justice. This article demonstrates how each of these theories has influenced the development of international climate policies or measures. No one theory of justice has the ability to respond to the multifaceted justice implications that arise as a result of climate change. It is argued that a variety of lenses of justice are useful when examining issues of injustice in the climate context. It is believed that articulating the justice implications of climate change by reference to theories of justice assists in clarifying the key issues giving rise to injustice. This article finds that while there has been some progress by the regime in recognising the injustices associated with climate change, such recognition is piecemeal and the implementation of many of the policies and measures discussed within this article needs to be either scaled up, or extended into more far-reaching policies and measures to overcome climate justice concerns. Overall it is suggested that climate justice concerns need to be clearly enunciated within key adaptation instruments so as to provide a legal and legitimate basis upon which to leverage action.

Anand, Ruchi . 2004 . International Environmental Justice: A North South Dimension

Global Environmental Politics, 2005

This short book attempts to satisfy the need for "a thorough assessment of environmental justice concerns at the global level" (back cover). Ruchi Anand examines an argument now familiar to those who study global environmental politics: The developed countries of the global North have an obligation to take action on environmental problems before the developing countries are required to do so, and the rich countries should aid the developing world as recompense for past pollution in the North and to aid the poor countries in carrying out environmental protection measures of their own. This notion of differentiated responsibility has become well established in international environmental agreements signed since the 1980s. At the outset Anand identiªes two types of justice relevant to environmental issues in both domestic and international contexts: procedural and distributive. Procedural justice, she says, "uncovers the dynamics of the inequitable bargaining powers of people/communities with different levels of economic development," whereas distributive justice "uncovers the inequitable distribution of social, economic, and political burdens on people/communities with different levels of development" (p. 10). Environmental justice is about "determining what is fair, to whom it is fair, to whom it is not fair and how these determinations are made about rights, fairness and entitlements to justice, etc. Justice, however, is a matter of judgment and this judgment inºuences the manner in which justice is rendered" (p. 14). Indeed. But how is one to judge? Most readers will be looking for a reasonably concise deªnition of environmental justice that can be applied to understanding and/or realizing it in the international context. Alas, Anand does not attempt to really pull apart the concept of justice until the ªnal "Conclusion" chapter (in a section oddly titled "A Recapitulation" [sic]), where she lays out some theories and perspectives that "grapple with the nature and deªnition of justice" (p. 122). These include utilitarianism and contractarianism, right to development, obligation not to harm, common-but-differentiated responsibility, duty not to discriminate and so forth. In some sense this list complicates the