The ‘Fair Share’ of Climate Mitigation: Can Litigation Increase National Ambition for Brazil?

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Human Rights Practice Pub Date : 2023-09-06 DOI:10.1093/jhuman/huad032
Maria Antonia Tigre
{"title":"The ‘Fair Share’ of Climate Mitigation: Can Litigation Increase National Ambition for Brazil?","authors":"Maria Antonia Tigre","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Several years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the world is still far from achieving its emission reduction target. Despite the scientific certainty of the devastating effects of climate change on human rights, countries’ ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) still fall short of the 1.5 °C goal. Compared to developed countries and their historical contributions, the Global South’s role in climate mitigation may appear insignificant. However, the magnitude of the human rights effects of climate change are enormous. Any increase above 1.5 °C would endanger human well-being and the ecosystems on which human life depends. Therefore, all parties must cooperate to adopt more ambitious NDCs. This imperative—while falling mainly on the Global North, which holds significant historical responsibility for emissions—also extends beyond the Global North, to, for example, a country like Brazil. This article assesses how fair share has played a role in climate litigation cases in the Global North (primarily in Europe) and discusses the possibilities and challenges of bringing similar cases in Brazil. It relies on the fair share methodology used to substantiate the argument of increased ambition in cases in the Global North, discussing whether a similar argument could be brought in Brazil.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Several years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the world is still far from achieving its emission reduction target. Despite the scientific certainty of the devastating effects of climate change on human rights, countries’ ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) still fall short of the 1.5 °C goal. Compared to developed countries and their historical contributions, the Global South’s role in climate mitigation may appear insignificant. However, the magnitude of the human rights effects of climate change are enormous. Any increase above 1.5 °C would endanger human well-being and the ecosystems on which human life depends. Therefore, all parties must cooperate to adopt more ambitious NDCs. This imperative—while falling mainly on the Global North, which holds significant historical responsibility for emissions—also extends beyond the Global North, to, for example, a country like Brazil. This article assesses how fair share has played a role in climate litigation cases in the Global North (primarily in Europe) and discusses the possibilities and challenges of bringing similar cases in Brazil. It relies on the fair share methodology used to substantiate the argument of increased ambition in cases in the Global North, discussing whether a similar argument could be brought in Brazil.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气候减缓的“公平份额”:诉讼能增加巴西的国家雄心吗?
《巴黎协定》通过几年后,世界仍远未实现其减排目标。尽管气候变化对人权的破坏性影响在科学上是确定的,但各国的“国家自主贡献”仍达不到1.5°C的目标。与发达国家及其历史贡献相比,全球南方在减缓气候变化方面的作用可能显得微不足道。然而,气候变化对人权的影响是巨大的。任何超过1.5°C的温度升高都将危及人类福祉和人类生命所依赖的生态系统。因此,各方必须合作,采用更具雄心的国家数据中心。这一当务之急——虽然主要落在对排放负有重大历史责任的全球北方——也延伸到了全球北方之外,例如巴西这样的国家。本文评估了公平份额如何在全球北方(主要是欧洲)的气候诉讼案件中发挥作用,并讨论了在巴西提起类似案件的可能性和挑战。它依赖于公平份额方法,该方法用于在全球北方的案件中证实野心增加的论点,并讨论是否可以在巴西提出类似的论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
80
期刊最新文献
Administrative Lawfare at the European Union’s External Borders: Some Perspectives on Administrative Regulation of NGO Search and Rescue Activities in Italy and the Situation at the Polish-Belarusian Border Specificity in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights A Jurisdictional Vertigo: Compulsory Arbitration, Sports and the European Court of Human Rights Forced Marriages in Times of Armed Conflict: An Implicit Paradox of Modern Slavery under International Humanitarian Law The Politics of Ambiguous Loss: Missing Persons and Social Ecologies after Armed Conflict
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1