The Stockholm+50 Conference (2-3 June 2022) has been perceived as a low-key affair and a missed opportunity. The moral halo that ushered the world into global environmental consciousness, led by the Prime Ministers of Sweden (Olof Palme) and India (Indira Gandhi) at the first UN Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) held in Stockholm (5–16 June 1972) seemed to be missing at the 2022 Stockholm+50 Conference. This historic event coincided with the 30th anniversary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Stockholm+50 event, jointly hosted by Sweden and Kenya, ended as a ubiquitous joint Presidents’ Final Remarks to the Plenary issued by the two host countries. In spite of the call for action by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to address the “triple planetary crisis” driven by climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution and waste, the Stockholm+50 outcome took the shape of ten-point summarized recommendations. It didn’t cause any ripples or resulted in a clarion call that could shake the conscience of peoples and nations to arise for everting the existential planetary crisis. The 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment at best remained a timid acknowledgement of things going terribly wrong in the past fifty years (1972–2022). Yet, no world leader stepped forward to don the mantle “to rescue” the world from the “environmental mess” as urged by the UNSG in his 2 June 2022 inaugural address. The heads of government and delegations seemed to lack the requisite courage befitting the momentous occasion for a decisive course correction in the global environmental regulatory policies, legal instruments and the environmental governance architecture. What would it entail to address the planetary crisis? It brings to the fore some lessons from the 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment that presents an ideational challenge for scholars of International Law and International Relations as well as the UN system, multilateral environmental treaty processes, international institutions and the decision-makers of the sovereign states.
{"title":"The 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment in the Era of a Planetary Crisis: Some Lessons for the Scholars and the Decision-makers","authors":"Bharat H. Desai","doi":"10.3233/epl-219055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-219055","url":null,"abstract":"The Stockholm+50 Conference (2-3 June 2022) has been perceived as a low-key affair and a missed opportunity. The moral halo that ushered the world into global environmental consciousness, led by the Prime Ministers of Sweden (Olof Palme) and India (Indira Gandhi) at the first UN Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) held in Stockholm (5–16 June 1972) seemed to be missing at the 2022 Stockholm+50 Conference. This historic event coincided with the 30th anniversary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Stockholm+50 event, jointly hosted by Sweden and Kenya, ended as a ubiquitous joint Presidents’ Final Remarks to the Plenary issued by the two host countries. In spite of the call for action by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to address the “triple planetary crisis” driven by climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution and waste, the Stockholm+50 outcome took the shape of ten-point summarized recommendations. It didn’t cause any ripples or resulted in a clarion call that could shake the conscience of peoples and nations to arise for everting the existential planetary crisis. The 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment at best remained a timid acknowledgement of things going terribly wrong in the past fifty years (1972–2022). Yet, no world leader stepped forward to don the mantle “to rescue” the world from the “environmental mess” as urged by the UNSG in his 2 June 2022 inaugural address. The heads of government and delegations seemed to lack the requisite courage befitting the momentous occasion for a decisive course correction in the global environmental regulatory policies, legal instruments and the environmental governance architecture. What would it entail to address the planetary crisis? It brings to the fore some lessons from the 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment that presents an ideational challenge for scholars of International Law and International Relations as well as the UN system, multilateral environmental treaty processes, international institutions and the decision-makers of the sovereign states.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47410225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact brought the ocean into the international climate regime, and the 2022 Sharm el-Sheikh COP27 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has finally ushered the world into a special fund to respond to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including on the human rights of present and future generations. But much remains to be clarified about how ocean-based mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology will contribute to inter-generational equity. To shed light on these issues, this article starts from the premise that the ocean is an essential but little-understood component of the interdependency between climate change and human rights. It is followed by an exploration of the importance of a healthy ocean for children’s human rights as a way to advance inter-generational equity under the 30-year-old (1992–2022) UNFCCC through systemic interpretation. The upcoming General Comment on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change (General Comment No. 26) by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child presents an opportunity to clarify the role of existing international human rights obligations in strengthening intergenerational equity at the climate-ocean interface on the basis of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This appears vital to ensure coordination across intergovernmental bodies and national government departments to safeguard ocean-dependent children’s human rights through climate policy and action at different levels.
{"title":"Strengthening Intergenerational Equity at the Ocean-Climate Nexus: Reflections on the UNCRC General Comment No.26+","authors":"Elisa Morgera, Mitchell Lennan","doi":"10.3233/epl-219052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-219052","url":null,"abstract":"The 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact brought the ocean into the international climate regime, and the 2022 Sharm el-Sheikh COP27 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has finally ushered the world into a special fund to respond to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including on the human rights of present and future generations. But much remains to be clarified about how ocean-based mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology will contribute to inter-generational equity. To shed light on these issues, this article starts from the premise that the ocean is an essential but little-understood component of the interdependency between climate change and human rights. It is followed by an exploration of the importance of a healthy ocean for children’s human rights as a way to advance inter-generational equity under the 30-year-old (1992–2022) UNFCCC through systemic interpretation. The upcoming General Comment on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change (General Comment No. 26) by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child presents an opportunity to clarify the role of existing international human rights obligations in strengthening intergenerational equity at the climate-ocean interface on the basis of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This appears vital to ensure coordination across intergovernmental bodies and national government departments to safeguard ocean-dependent children’s human rights through climate policy and action at different levels.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43615240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Green roofs provide multiple benefits to households and urban neighbourhoods by lowering temperatures, reducing energy costs, and reducing stormwater runoff. However, green roofs are expensive and may not be available to all residents, which raises questions about who benefits from green roofs and urban policies that support this technology. Policies to support different social groups’ access to this green infrastructure is important for achieving equity. This study aims to identify and analyze to what extent existing different rooftop greening incentives and mandatory policies in three American cities, including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, address environmental justice. Nine policies were analyzed from three cities based on three dimensions of environmental justice. The results show that all policies have neglected a degree of distributional, recognitional, and procedural environmental justice in their policies. Although incentives try to advance distributional justice by implementing green roofs in different parts of the city, these policies do not pay enough attention to support themes such as zoning, size, rental status, land value, and affordability in all urban areas.
{"title":"Rooftops for Whom? Some Environmental Justice Issues in Urban Green Roof Policies of Three North American Cities","authors":"Sina Razzaghi Asl","doi":"10.3233/epl-220015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-220015","url":null,"abstract":"Green roofs provide multiple benefits to households and urban neighbourhoods by lowering temperatures, reducing energy costs, and reducing stormwater runoff. However, green roofs are expensive and may not be available to all residents, which raises questions about who benefits from green roofs and urban policies that support this technology. Policies to support different social groups’ access to this green infrastructure is important for achieving equity. This study aims to identify and analyze to what extent existing different rooftop greening incentives and mandatory policies in three American cities, including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, address environmental justice. Nine policies were analyzed from three cities based on three dimensions of environmental justice. The results show that all policies have neglected a degree of distributional, recognitional, and procedural environmental justice in their policies. Although incentives try to advance distributional justice by implementing green roofs in different parts of the city, these policies do not pay enough attention to support themes such as zoning, size, rental status, land value, and affordability in all urban areas.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42133058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The complex sustainability challenges of the 21st century need to be addressed through integrated interdisciplinary approaches, combining science, law, and ethics with concrete, timely, and effective solutions. This study offers a legal framework and a case study to the needs posited by the Agenda 2030 on sustainable development. Starting from an analysis of the first part of the Agenda, the article unfolds by exploring the possibility of defining environmental compliance through environmental responsibility, environmental duties, and the virtuous case of agroecology. The case study focuses on a climate-smart practice applied to the sea and delves into the environmental, nutritional, and health benefits of the marine biomass from Northern Norway. The theoretical framework and the case study will emphasize the importance of systemic approaches to sustainability for putting integral ecology models into action.
{"title":"The New Horizons of Law and Science through the lens of the Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development. Some Emerging Issues","authors":"M. Poto, E. Murray","doi":"10.3233/epl-220039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-220039","url":null,"abstract":"The complex sustainability challenges of the 21st century need to be addressed through integrated interdisciplinary approaches, combining science, law, and ethics with concrete, timely, and effective solutions. This study offers a legal framework and a case study to the needs posited by the Agenda 2030 on sustainable development. Starting from an analysis of the first part of the Agenda, the article unfolds by exploring the possibility of defining environmental compliance through environmental responsibility, environmental duties, and the virtuous case of agroecology. The case study focuses on a climate-smart practice applied to the sea and delves into the environmental, nutritional, and health benefits of the marine biomass from Northern Norway. The theoretical framework and the case study will emphasize the importance of systemic approaches to sustainability for putting integral ecology models into action.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46626664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We are already witnessing climate-induced migration and thus must prepare to address the next decades of even more human mobility as a consequence of the climate disruption crisis. Fifty years after the Stockholm Conference, international environmental law still needs solutions to protect those persons most vulnerable to environmental harm. This paper seeks to focus on the concept of reparative justice as the theme and attitude of legal solutions, so as to refocus legal tools to provide relief to those persons who are displaced and dispossessed because of the climate disruption crisis. In this paper, we present possibilities for a reparative climate justice regime that could help to break the current cycle of harm and denial in which states are currently embroiled within international climate negotiations. This focus considers how careful solutions such as credit within the financial mechanisms under the Paris Agreement, in a spirit of trust and solidarity, could contribute to legal solutions to climate migration problems. The paper first iterates the scope and history of climate-induced migration in international law and then presents the case for reparations as a strong legal response to climate-induced migration, before finally exploring the legal avenues within international climate law wherein reparative justice and financing could potentially operate.
{"title":"Climate-Induced Migration: Need for a Reparative Legal Regime+","authors":"K. Junker, S. Münster, M. Shinde","doi":"10.3233/epl-219053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-219053","url":null,"abstract":"We are already witnessing climate-induced migration and thus must prepare to address the next decades of even more human mobility as a consequence of the climate disruption crisis. Fifty years after the Stockholm Conference, international environmental law still needs solutions to protect those persons most vulnerable to environmental harm. This paper seeks to focus on the concept of reparative justice as the theme and attitude of legal solutions, so as to refocus legal tools to provide relief to those persons who are displaced and dispossessed because of the climate disruption crisis. In this paper, we present possibilities for a reparative climate justice regime that could help to break the current cycle of harm and denial in which states are currently embroiled within international climate negotiations. This focus considers how careful solutions such as credit within the financial mechanisms under the Paris Agreement, in a spirit of trust and solidarity, could contribute to legal solutions to climate migration problems. The paper first iterates the scope and history of climate-induced migration in international law and then presents the case for reparations as a strong legal response to climate-induced migration, before finally exploring the legal avenues within international climate law wherein reparative justice and financing could potentially operate.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44450927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The current political tension among developed states and developing nations regarding the exploration, exploitation, benefit-sharing, and conservation of marine genetic resources (MRGs) in ungoverned areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) requires a new marine, regulative regime, which is considered as the premise for the creation of the international consensus of promulgating the ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’ principle (CHM). This study employed desk research methods to synthesize, compare, and analyze UNCLOS (1982), Nagoya Protocol (2014), ongoing ILBI sessions, and other recent studies to figure out the regulatory gap within the Law of the Sea under UNCLOS. By carefully generalizing and scrutinizing the documentation, the study strongly emphasizes the necessity to implement the CHM principle in ABNJ instead of promoting the concept of ‘first come, first served’ basis for the sake of the equitable sharing of benefits, and the conservation of MGRs in ABNJ for the current and future generations. The study also provides the connotations of CHM principle, which serves theoretical basis for some marine management approaches. Consequently, these perspectives stem from a representative developing state with a long coastal line –Vietnam. The general, theoretical, and practical viewpoints would significantly contribute to current and future international law-making process with respect to the formulation of a new legal marine regime for regulating the exploitation, equitable access, and conservation of MGRs in ABNJ according to the ideal concept of CHM principle thereof.
{"title":"Common Heritage of Mankind Principles Applied To Marine Genetic Resources In Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Some Legal Reflections","authors":"Hanh Hong Pham, Tuan Van Vu","doi":"10.3233/epl-220041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-220041","url":null,"abstract":"The current political tension among developed states and developing nations regarding the exploration, exploitation, benefit-sharing, and conservation of marine genetic resources (MRGs) in ungoverned areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) requires a new marine, regulative regime, which is considered as the premise for the creation of the international consensus of promulgating the ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’ principle (CHM). This study employed desk research methods to synthesize, compare, and analyze UNCLOS (1982), Nagoya Protocol (2014), ongoing ILBI sessions, and other recent studies to figure out the regulatory gap within the Law of the Sea under UNCLOS. By carefully generalizing and scrutinizing the documentation, the study strongly emphasizes the necessity to implement the CHM principle in ABNJ instead of promoting the concept of ‘first come, first served’ basis for the sake of the equitable sharing of benefits, and the conservation of MGRs in ABNJ for the current and future generations. The study also provides the connotations of CHM principle, which serves theoretical basis for some marine management approaches. Consequently, these perspectives stem from a representative developing state with a long coastal line –Vietnam. The general, theoretical, and practical viewpoints would significantly contribute to current and future international law-making process with respect to the formulation of a new legal marine regime for regulating the exploitation, equitable access, and conservation of MGRs in ABNJ according to the ideal concept of CHM principle thereof.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48705034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The decision-makers, lawyers and legislators have a responsibility to know and understand the science, facts, global regulatory framework and uncertainties of climate change in order to better achieve the goals of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among others. They also have linkages and relevance for the implementation of the legal obligations under Article 6 (inherent right to life) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 11 (adequate standard of living) and 12 (physical and mental health) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This study critically examines the complex interplay between different regimes regarding climate change mitigation, sustainability and human rights so as to better respond to “climate emergency” underscored by the UN Secretary-General on 2 June 2022 at the Stockholm+50 Conference.
{"title":"The Paris Agreement: A Symbiosis for the Protection of Human Rights and Climate Change?","authors":"O. Ruppel, Cleo Dobers","doi":"10.3233/epl-219051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-219051","url":null,"abstract":"The decision-makers, lawyers and legislators have a responsibility to know and understand the science, facts, global regulatory framework and uncertainties of climate change in order to better achieve the goals of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among others. They also have linkages and relevance for the implementation of the legal obligations under Article 6 (inherent right to life) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 11 (adequate standard of living) and 12 (physical and mental health) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This study critically examines the complex interplay between different regimes regarding climate change mitigation, sustainability and human rights so as to better respond to “climate emergency” underscored by the UN Secretary-General on 2 June 2022 at the Stockholm+50 Conference.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49300031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The reality of creeping adverse effect of climate change. The human imprint on it has been affirmed by various global processes including 21 May 2019 recognition by the Anthropocene Working Group. It has emerged as a planetary crisis. By 2050 climate change could see 4% of global annual economic output lost to the tune of $23 trillion and may hit many poorer parts of the world disproportionately hard. Though entire populations are affected by climate change, women and girls suffer the most. Due to their traditional roles, women are heavily dependent on natural resources. As a consequence of natural disasters and during Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-22, women have faced heightened risks to different forms of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). They suffer from a lack of protection, privacy, and mental trauma. Effects of climate change results in the feminization and intensification of vulnerability of women and girls. As there is double victimization of women both as human beings and because of their gender. Growing evidence suggests role of climate change heightened violence against women and girls. There is no specific international legal instrument dealing with SGBV against women during and after the climate change induced disasters. The texts of the three specific climate change treaties (1992 UNFCCC, 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris Agreement) do not address this crucial aspect. It has been given attention only through the recent decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP). Due to serious psychological and bodily harm SGBV causes to women, it needs to be explicitly factored in respective international legal instruments on climate change and disasters. Amidst ignorance, denials and lack of adequate attention by scholars and decision-makers in the field to address adverse effects of climate change in causing heightened violence against women and girls, this study makes a modest effort to deduce and analyze –from scattered initiatives, scholarly literature in different areas, existing international legal instruments and intergovernmental processes –the growing causal relationship between climate change and SGBV especially against women and girls as well as the phenomenal cost so as to suggest a way out for our better common future. It is a new challenge for international law that needs to be duly addressed in a timely manner.
{"title":"The Cost of Climate Change Heightened Sexual and Gender-based Violence: A Challenge for International Law","authors":"Bharat H. Desai, Moumita Mandal","doi":"10.3233/epl-219049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-219049","url":null,"abstract":"The reality of creeping adverse effect of climate change. The human imprint on it has been affirmed by various global processes including 21 May 2019 recognition by the Anthropocene Working Group. It has emerged as a planetary crisis. By 2050 climate change could see 4% of global annual economic output lost to the tune of $23 trillion and may hit many poorer parts of the world disproportionately hard. Though entire populations are affected by climate change, women and girls suffer the most. Due to their traditional roles, women are heavily dependent on natural resources. As a consequence of natural disasters and during Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-22, women have faced heightened risks to different forms of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). They suffer from a lack of protection, privacy, and mental trauma. Effects of climate change results in the feminization and intensification of vulnerability of women and girls. As there is double victimization of women both as human beings and because of their gender. Growing evidence suggests role of climate change heightened violence against women and girls. There is no specific international legal instrument dealing with SGBV against women during and after the climate change induced disasters. The texts of the three specific climate change treaties (1992 UNFCCC, 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris Agreement) do not address this crucial aspect. It has been given attention only through the recent decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP). Due to serious psychological and bodily harm SGBV causes to women, it needs to be explicitly factored in respective international legal instruments on climate change and disasters. Amidst ignorance, denials and lack of adequate attention by scholars and decision-makers in the field to address adverse effects of climate change in causing heightened violence against women and girls, this study makes a modest effort to deduce and analyze –from scattered initiatives, scholarly literature in different areas, existing international legal instruments and intergovernmental processes –the growing causal relationship between climate change and SGBV especially against women and girls as well as the phenomenal cost so as to suggest a way out for our better common future. It is a new challenge for international law that needs to be duly addressed in a timely manner.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48504275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the recognition by the UN General Assembly resolution 43/53 (6 December 1988) that “climate change is a common concern for mankind” as well as adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing global environmental challenges. The IPCC AR6 (April 2022) curated scientific evidence has explicitly observed that “Net anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased since 2010 across all major sectors globally” The cumulative effect of GHG emissions appears to exacerbate the abnormal weather events, melting the polar ice caps and cause other cataclysmic climatic changes. The effects of climate change transcend territorial boundaries and continents. It has provided a normative basis for the concerted international law-making process underneath the existing UNFCCC led global regulatory regime. It designated climate change as a common concern of humankind. The resultant soft normativity has been shaped into the hard law through the trajectory of three international legal instruments that took the forms such as common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (1992 UNFCCC) to international legal commitments only for Annex I countries (1997 Kyoto Protocol) and the nationally determined commitments by the parties (2015 Paris Agreement). This study has sought to place under scanner the graded evolution of the climate change regime through the in-built law-making process premised upon a common concern of humankind. In the aftermath of the UN Secretary-General’s warning about climate emergency as part of “triple planetary crisis”, it is high time the international law scholars, the UN General Assembly and the UNFCCC regulatory process shifts into the higher trajectory of climate change as a planetary concern.
{"title":"Regulating Global Climate Change: From Common Concern to Planetary Concern","authors":"Bharat H. Desai","doi":"10.3233/epl-219050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-219050","url":null,"abstract":"Since the recognition by the UN General Assembly resolution 43/53 (6 December 1988) that “climate change is a common concern for mankind” as well as adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing global environmental challenges. The IPCC AR6 (April 2022) curated scientific evidence has explicitly observed that “Net anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased since 2010 across all major sectors globally” The cumulative effect of GHG emissions appears to exacerbate the abnormal weather events, melting the polar ice caps and cause other cataclysmic climatic changes. The effects of climate change transcend territorial boundaries and continents. It has provided a normative basis for the concerted international law-making process underneath the existing UNFCCC led global regulatory regime. It designated climate change as a common concern of humankind. The resultant soft normativity has been shaped into the hard law through the trajectory of three international legal instruments that took the forms such as common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (1992 UNFCCC) to international legal commitments only for Annex I countries (1997 Kyoto Protocol) and the nationally determined commitments by the parties (2015 Paris Agreement). This study has sought to place under scanner the graded evolution of the climate change regime through the in-built law-making process premised upon a common concern of humankind. In the aftermath of the UN Secretary-General’s warning about climate emergency as part of “triple planetary crisis”, it is high time the international law scholars, the UN General Assembly and the UNFCCC regulatory process shifts into the higher trajectory of climate change as a planetary concern.","PeriodicalId":52410,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48514224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：