Climate Justice under the Paris Agreement: Framework and Substance (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Paris Agreement Revisited: Diplomatic Triumphalism or Denial of Climate Justice?
Journal of Environmental Protection, 2022
The 2015 Paris COP 21, after the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen COP, raised many expectations regarding the elaboration of the post-Kyoto legal instrument to lead the global fight against climate change. At the sunset of the summit, world leaders and climate negotiators, relayed by mainstream Medias, presented the results of the Paris climate discussions as an important success for the global climate community. A success contested by climate justice and just transition defenders. Given the foundation role the Paris agreement plays for subsequent global, national and sub-national climate policies on one side and, on the other side, the continuous growing global demands for climate justice and just transition, this article investigates the conciliatory possibilities put in place by the agreement to advance those demands. To reach such goals, the article focuses on the retrospective critical reading of the agreement in the light of human-centered climate perspectives such as climate justice and just transition, without neglecting other aspects related to the very nature of the agreement, and the enhanced commodification of nature and resulting carbon trading. This analysis of the agreement through climate justice lenses will be instrumental in confirming or disproving the following hypothesis: From the climate justice and just transition perspectives, the success of the Paris regime will not pass through the implementation of the Paris agreement itself, but thought corrective mechanisms that could be put in place to correct the loopholes of the agreement. The initiative of putting such post-Paris corrective mechanisms in place is expected to be one of the key priorities of the international community.
Reflections on Paris: Thoughts Towards a Critical Approach to Climate Law
Revue québécoise de droit international, 2018
This article critically evaluates the 2015 Paris Agreement, highlighting the almost dichotomous responses it received from the mainstream press as compared to the climate justice movement. This article foregrounds that divide in order to ask further questions of the Agreement and the international climate regime, including questions about what voices and perspectives are heard in scholarship on international climate law. The article suggests the need to engage with international climate law in ways that are attentive to the productive effects of international agreements, as well as the need to examine their distributional effects, to interrogate what new social relations they establish and stabilize as well as how power and authority might be reorganized or rearranged by practices authorized by international environmental law.
B. POZZO - V. JACOMETTI (eds.), ENVIRONMENTAL LOSS AND DAMAGE IN A COMPARATIVE LAW PERSPECTIVE, Intersentia (Cambridge), 2021
Climate change has a subversive character. Its nature, characteristics, scale and intensity are so different from any other problem or menace humankind has faced so far that it requires a radical reconceptualisation of almost every field of human knowledge and its practices. The social, ethical, political and geopolitical, economic and legal dimensions are all inextricably entangled in this effort. The subversive or disruptive, so to speak, nature of climate change consists precisely in this, i.e. in the fact that – in all these domains – previous categories, institutions, procedures, ideas and, more generally, “modes of thought” need to be re-imagined and therefore redefined, if not completely and radically re-thought, to address the new global climate situation.
AARN: Social Justice & Human Rights (Sub-Topic), 2018
In the light of the new era of climate action under the Paris Agreement (PA) and the rights and justice issues raised by climate change-related policies and measures, this paper discusses the integration of a human rights component within the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) of the PA. Established in article 6.4, the SDM is essentially a new mitigation mechanism available to all Parties aimed at helping them to achieve and increase their mitigation actions, while fostering sustainable development. Looking back at the experience of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, which bears great resemblance to the SDM, as well as to the human rights concerns raised during its implementation, the integration of human rights considerations into the SDM and its governing rules seems to be necessary to prevent negative outcomes and human rights harms when implemented. The adoption of such rules, consistent with international human rights, could provide an opportunity...
Climate justice and ambition under the Paris agreement
2020
Justice and ambition are key concepts concerning the efforts for mitigating climate change (CC) amongst countries. This effort sharing should suit all the Parties while meeting the Paris Agreement (PA) goals. However, although the PA enunciates that it must be “applied in a way reflecting equity” [2], it lacks the basis on how this equity should be operationalized. Moreover, the Paris Rule Book (PRB) indicates that the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) must reflect fairness and the highest level of ambition reachable by a country [3]. In the absence of an international reference methodological framework in these matters, this paper aims to propose a methodology to assess the degree of justice and ambition of a country’s NDC.
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
Loss and damage (L&D) associated with the adverse impacts of climate change has now become a harsh reality in many parts of the world, especially in the low income developing countries. The consistent rise of global average temperature and inadequate mitigation pledges to limit Earth’s average temperature rise well below 2 degree Centigrade from the pre-industrial era would further aggravate the situation causing L&D inevitable and irreversible. There are already many evidences of irreversible L&D resulting from the localized and unusual extreme and slow onset events. Back in 1991 the Alliance of the Small Island States (AOSIS)-who feared to be drowned by the rise of sea levels-argued for addressing climate change induced L&D; however the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted in 1992 didn’t formally recognize this. Over the years, the developed country group denied any discussion despite the L&D has started to manifest given the context of feeble mitigation effort and inadequate adaptation support to the developing countries. Against the persistent demand of the AOSIS and the developing country groups for addressing climate change induced L&D, the developed country group has long been able to hinder any progress in L&D negotiations as they feared to be liable for causing L&D and compensate those. Over the years, the developed country group not only hindered L&D negotiations but also distracted the entire UNFCCC negotiation process with their structured policy shifting, which caused proliferation of ‘manifest climate injustice’ to the developing counties. It is only in 2007, the COP 13 (Conference of the Parties) held in Bali in 2007 included L&D as an issue for further negotiations, and the COP 16 held in Cancun in 2010 decided to establish a ‘Work Programme’ for addressing L&D. However, the major progress in L&D negotiations achieved at COP 21 held in Paris in 2015 that included a stand-alone article in the Paris Agreement with the provision of enhanced action and support for addressing L&D on the ground. While inclusion of a standalone ‘loss and damage’ Article (Article 8) in the Paris Agreement is being considered a big step forward of correcting ‘manifest climate injustice’, yet there are major disagreements among the Parties on the key L&D issues, which might cause proliferation of ‘manifest climate injustice’ putting the climate vulnerable countries under more aggravated L&D situation. To correct ‘manifest climate injustice’ this paper analyses the policy shifts of the climate change negotiations, provides an overview how L&D evolved in negotiation process, discusses the current debate and disagreement on L&D emerged in the post Paris COP negotiations, and finally concludes with five policy recommendations directed to the COP and to the national stakeholders. The recommendations are: a) a standalone L&D agenda item under the SBI, b) a standalone L&D financing mechanism with multiple windows, c) strengthened institutional arrangement-global to national, d) new and additional L&D financingnot blending with the humanitarian assistance, e) separate governance and fund management mechanism under the COP. The recommended policy positions may also guide the border policy stakeholders and CSOs to advocate for a justice-based response for addressing L&D on the ground.