scholarly journals Responsibilities for Climate Damage within Borders: Reconciling Liability with Shared Responsibility

Philosophies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Kumie Hattori
Keyword(s):  
Normative Theory ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
Political Responsibility ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Loss And Damage ◽  
Responsibility Model ◽  
Reparative Justice

The literature on climate justice has primarily focused on distributing the benefits and burdens of climate change, particularly those related to the costs of mitigation and adaptation. As such, less attention has been paid to emerging political issues surrounding loss and damage caused by the failure of mitigation and adaptation. This paper aims to fill this gap through discussions on reparative justice, which is correlated with the concept of liability. Since the concept of liability has controversial implications in climate politics and theory, investigating reparative justice for climate damage must clarify how the concept of liability can reconcile with the normative theory of political responsibility. This paper begins with the question of how the distributive justice scheme fails to discuss climate damage, by arguing that the scheme does not necessarily recognise a prior injustice and misses the need for reparation for the extensive scope of climate loss and damage. Then, it shows that the concept of reparation, which differs from compensation, holds more promise in giving the proper due for climate loss and damage. Finally, after comparing the liability model and the shared responsibility model proposed by Iris Young, this paper concludes by proposing that the hybrid model of liability and shared responsibility can be used to avoid limitations of the concept of liability.

scholarly journals Responsibility for Climate Change as a Structural Injustice

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Eckersley
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Hybrid Approach ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Skewed Distribution ◽  
Political Responsibility ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Historical Responsibility ◽  
Climate Vulnerability ◽  
The Common

This chapter critically explores the political and moral challenges involved in understanding the harms of climate change as the product of structural injustices with a specific focus on political responsibility. The chapter stages a critical encounter between Iris Marion Young’s account of political responsibility, and the debate among climate justice theorists on how to assign responsibility for mitigation and adaptation to citizens and states. This encounter demonstrates the value of a hybrid approach that includes, and bridges, forward looking shared responsibility and backward looking liability models, but also reveals a major predicament. The more that structural injustices based on historical responsibility are backgrounded, the easier it becomes to reach agreements between the world’s most vulnerable and most privileged. Yet doing so accelerates the skewed distribution of climate vulnerability toward the least privileged, diminishing the common ground needed to achieve an equitable allocation of responsibility for climate change.

Three Faces of Climate Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nives Dolšak ◽  
Aseem Prakash
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Change Impacts ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
Disadvantaged Communities ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Change Climate ◽  
Climate Crisis

There is overwhelming consensus about the science of climate change. Climate politics, however, remains volatile, driven by perceptions of injustice, which motivate policy resistance and undermine policy legitimacy. We identify three types of injustice. The first pertains to the uneven exposure to climate change impacts across countries and communities within a country. Socially, politically, and economically disadvantaged communities that have contributed the least to the climate crisis tend to be affected the most. To address climate change and its impacts, countries and subnational units have enacted a range of policies. But even carefully designed mitigation and adaptation policies distribute costs (the second justice dimension) and benefits (the third justice dimension) unevenly across sectors and communities, often reproducing existing inequalities. Climate justice requires paying careful attention to who bears the costs and who gets the benefits of both climate inaction and action. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 25 is May 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

scholarly journals Climate Fiction, Climate Theory: Decolonising Imaginations of Global Futures

2022 ◽  
pp. 030582982110639
Author(s):  
Carl Death
Keyword(s):  
Doris Lessing ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
Gendered Violence ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
Loss And Damage ◽  
Political Economies ◽  
Ecological Modernisation ◽  
Spatio Temporal ◽  
Climate Fiction ◽  
Global Futures

The international politics of climate change invokes the imagination of various potential global futures, ranging from techno-optimist visions of ecological modernisation to apocalyptic nightmares of climate chaos. This article argues that most dominant framings of the future in climate policy imaginaries tend to be depoliticised and linear visions of universal, homogenous time, with little spatio-temporal or ecological plurality. This article aims to convince IR scholars of climate politics that Africanfuturist climate fiction novels can contribute to the decolonisation of climate politics through radically different socio-climatic imaginaries to those that dominate mainstream imaginations of climate futures. The Africanfuturist climate fiction novels of authors such as Nnedi Okorafor, Lauren Beukes and Doris Lessing imagine different spaces, temporalities, ecologies and politics. Reading them as climate theory, they offer the possibility of a more decolonised climate politics, in which issues of land and climate justice, loss and damage, extractive political economies and the racialised and gendered violence of capitalism are central.

Die Bewegung für Klimagerechtigkeit und Energiedemokratie in Deutschland.

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (184) ◽  
pp. 403-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Sander
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Movement Analysis ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
Historical Materialist

This article argues that social movement research must be renewed by a historical-materialist perspective to be able to understand the emergence and effects of the relatively new climate justice movement in Germany. The previous research on NGOs and social movements in climate politics is presented and the recent development of the climate justice movement in Germany is illustrated. In a final step two cases of climate movement campaigns are explained by means of the historical-materialist movement analysis proposed by the author.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke A. Ackerly
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Power Relation ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Political Transformation ◽  
Political Responsibility ◽  
Women's Human Rights ◽  
Taking Responsibility

Just responsibility is a transformative human rights politics for taking on the complexities, power inequalities, and social normalization of injustice itself. Just responsibility is a human rights theory of political responsibility in which we understand human rights as enjoyed and shared throughout political community (and human rights entitlements as a tool toward that end), political community as defined by its web of networks, not its boundaries, accountability as a political process of discernment, not a power relation, and leadership as a quality of political community, not of individuals within it. Found within and supported by the principles-in-practice of women’s human rights activists, this grounded normative theory of responsibility guides us in a human rights enhancing way to be accountable leaders in political transformation, taking responsibility for global injustice in a just way.

scholarly journals Loss and damage from climate change and implicit assumptions of sustainable development

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chad S. Boda ◽  
Turaj Faran ◽  
Murray Scown ◽  
Kelly Dorkenoo ◽  
Brian C. Chaffin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Integrative Framework ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Policy Domain ◽  
Loss And Damage ◽  
Development Approach ◽  
Research And Policy

AbstractLoss and damage from climate change, recognized as a unique research and policy domain through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) in 2013, has drawn increasing attention among climate scientists and policy makers. Labelled by some as the “third pillar” of the international climate regime—along with mitigation and adaptation—it has been suggested that loss and damage has the potential to catalyze important synergies with other international agendas, particularly sustainable development. However, the specific approaches to sustainable development that inform loss and damage research and how these approaches influence research outcomes and policy recommendations remain largely unexplored. We offer a systematic analysis of the assumptions of sustainable development that underpins loss and damage scholarship through a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research on loss and damage. We demonstrate that the use of specific metrics, decision criteria, and policy prescriptions by loss and damage researchers and practitioners implies an unwitting adherence to different underlying theories of sustainable development, which in turn impact how loss and damage is conceptualized and applied. In addition to research and policy implications, our review suggests that assumptions about the aims of sustainable development determine how loss and damage is conceptualized, measured, and governed, and the human development approach currently represents the most advanced perspective on sustainable development and thus loss and damage. This review supports sustainable development as a coherent, comprehensive, and integrative framework for guiding further conceptual and empirical development of loss and damage scholarship.

Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Heyward
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
Dangerous Climate Change ◽  
Radiation Management

Geoengineering, the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1), is attracting increasing interest. As well as the Royal Society, various scientific and government organizations have produced reports on the potential and challenge of geoengineering as a potential strategy, alongside mitigation and adaptation, to avoid the vast human and environmental costs that climate change is thought to bring (Blackstock et al. 2009; GAO 2010; Long et al. 2011; Rickels et al. 2011). “Geoengineering” covers a diverse range of proposals conventionally divided into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) proposals and solar radiation management (SRM) proposals. This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change. To make this case, the first section of this article discusses whether geoengineering is distinctive, and the second situates CDR and SRM in relation to other responses to climate change.

scholarly journals Do juiz herói ao tribunal democrático

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-30
Author(s):  
Beatriz Nunes Diógenes ◽  
Diane Espíndola
Keyword(s):  
Public Reason ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Institutional Dynamics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Model ◽  
Normative Standard

RESUMO:O objetivo deste artigo foi refletir sobre o atual papel do Poder Judiciário como porta-voz do texto constitucional e ator político em constante relação conflituosa com o legislativo. Discutiu-se sobre o ativismo judicial e a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal como legislador moral (superego da sociedade), a ideia do juiz herói e seus desdobramentos democráticos, principalmente quanto ao sistema de freios e contrapesos. Observou-se a existência de um movimento de hiperjudicialização de questões éticas e políticas, que acarreta o desequilíbrio da dinâmica institucional do modelo democrático. Conclui-se que a atuação do Poder Judiciário não deve ser marcada pelo decisionismo disfarçado de ordem de valores, nem tampouco deve atuar como legislador moral e nem permitir a ausência de vinculação ao padrão normativo. Foi sugerido, para tanto, o aperfeiçoamento da dinâmica institucional brasileira através da interação permanente entre o judiciário e o legislativo, em busca da formação de uma teoria normativa da separação de poderes que promova um debate qualitativo consubstanciado na razão pública, que resguarde direitos e tonifique a dimensão deliberativa do modelo político em vigor. Utilizou-se, para tal reflexão, do método de pesquisa bibliográfico.ABSTRACT:The purpose of this article was to reflect on the current role of the judiciary as a spokesperson for the constitutional text and political actor in constant conflicting relationship with the legislative. It was discussed about judicial activism and the performance of the Supreme Court as moral legislator (society’s superego), the idea of the judge hero and its democratic repercussions, especially regarding the system of checks and balances. The existence of a movement of hyperjudicialization of ethical and political issues was observed, which causes the imbalance of the institutional dynamics of the democratic model. It is concluded that the performance of the judiciary should not be marked by decisionism disguised as an order of values, nor should it act as a moral legislator or allow the absence of binding to the normative standard. To this end, it was suggested that the Brazilian institutional dynamics be improved through the permanent interaction between the judiciary and the legislature, seeking the formation of a normative theory of the separation of powers that promotes a qualitative debate embodied in public reason that safeguards rights and tones the deliberative dimension of the current political model. For such reflection, the bibliographic research method was used 

scholarly journals Challenges of Compensation and Reparation for Loss and Damage Related to the Adverse Effects of Climate Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Jorge Gabriel Arévalo García
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Loss And Damage ◽  
Legal Model ◽  
Adaptation Policies

Anthropogenic climate change has and will have unavoidable adverse effects despite mitigation and adaptation policies. Therefore, the financial burden of the costs of loss and damage must be distributed fairly and proportionally. This implies that those responsible for climate change must take responsibility and compensate those who suffer losses and, if possible, repair the damages related to this phenomenon. However, climate justice has been limited by the lack of a causal link between a specific climate change effect and specific damages or losses. Accordingly, this article discusses the compensation and reparation of losses and damages related to the adverse effects of climate change, as a stream applicable after mitigation and adaptation policies. In addition, this article reviews the implications of the relevant findings that established the existence and development of climate change as a problem that affects the enjoyment of human rights, to argue how the theory of human rights can contribute to the current legal model for reparation and compensation for losses and damages associated with climate change. Also, due to the impossibility of obtaining a legally binding agreement as a structure for integration, and to adequately address the problem of causes, consequences, benefits and burdens, vulnerable groups ought to be the most affected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document