scholarly journals Paris Agreement, Precautionary Principle and Human Rights: Zero Emissions in Two Decades?

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 2812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Ekardt ◽  
Jutta Wieding ◽  
Anika Zorn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Temperature Limit ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
Short Timeframe ◽  
The Eu

The Paris Agreement of December 2015 is subject to much criticism of being inadequate. This however neglects its very ambitious objective, which limits legally-binding global warming to 1.5 to 1.8 degrees in comparison to pre-industrial levels. This article shows, based on the overlap of unanswered questions for prognoses in natural science and the legal precautionary principle, that this objective indicates a legal imperative towards zero emissions globally within a short timeframe. Furthermore, it becomes apparent that policies need to be focused on achieving the 1.5-degree temperature limit. From a legal standpoint with regard to existential matters, only those policies are justified that are fit to contribute to reaching the temperature limit with high certainty, without overshoot, without leaving the 1.5 limit aside and without geoengineering measures, in contrast to the tendencies of the IPCC. This creates a big challenge even for the alleged forerunners of climate policies, Germany and the EU; because, according to the objective, the EU and Germany have to raise the level of ambition in their climate policies rapidly and drastically.

scholarly journals Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (21) ◽  
pp. 8858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta Wieding ◽  
Jessica Stubenrauch ◽  
Felix Ekardt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Temperature Limit ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Protection ◽  
Livestock Products ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Negative Emission Technologies

: Most scenarios on instruments limiting global warming in line with the 1.5 °C temperature limit of the Paris Agreement rely on overshooting the emissions threshold, thus requiring the application of negative emission technologies later on. Subsequently, the debate on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) (frequently subsumed under “geoengineering”) has been reinforced. Yet, it does not determine normatively whether those are legally valid approaches to climate protection. After taking a closer look at the scope of climate scenarios and SRM methods compiling current research and opinions on SRM, this paper analyses the feasibility of geoengineering and of SRM in particular under international law. It will be shown that from the perspective of human rights, the Paris Agreement, and precautionary principle the phasing-out of fossil fuels and the reduction in consumption of livestock products as well as nature-based approaches such as sustainable—and thus climate and biodiversity-smart—forest, peatland, and agricultural management strongly prevail before geoengineering and atmospheric SRM measures in particular. However, as all of the atmospheric SRM methods are in their development phase, governance options to effectively frame further exploration of SRM technologies are proposed, maintaining that respective technologies thus far are not a viable means of climate protection.

scholarly journals The Paris Agreement: Consequences for the EU and Carbon Markets?

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 188-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steinar Andresen ◽  
Jon Birger Skjærseth ◽  
Torbjørg Jevnaker ◽  
Jørgen Wettestad
Keyword(s):  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Carbon Markets ◽  
Potential Effectiveness ◽  
Know How ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
The Right ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
The Eu

Most observers argue that this agreement is a step in the right direction. However, we do not know how effective it will be in terms of reducing emissions. We therefore discuss its potential effectiveness regarding EU climate policies and carbon markets. We argue that the Paris Agreement may have a positive effect but uncertainties abound.

scholarly journals Delivering on the Paris Promises? Review of the Paris Agreement’s Implementing Guidelines from a Human Rights Perspective

Climate Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-223
Author(s):  
Sébastien Duyck
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
Global Environmental ◽  
Explicit Reference ◽  
Litmus Test ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
First Time

The adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015 constituted an unprecedented step in the recognition by states of the importance of ensuring that their action on the climate is informed by human rights: for the first time a global environmental legal instrument referred explicitly to human rights. However, whether this provision will contribute to the shaping of climate policies depends significantly on the extent to which it is integrated into further guidance regarding the implementation of the Agreement. The adoption by states of guidance on most aspects of the Paris Agreement, at cop 24/cma1.3, in December 2018, is a litmus test on whether the implementation of the Agreement is likely to reflect a higher level of integration of human rights concerns into climate governance. Having noted the absence of explicit reference to human rights in the guidelines, this article reviews key aspects of the guidelines from the perspective of principles related to human rights, such as public participation, gender equality, and respect for the rights and knowledge of indigenous peoples. This review includes an analysis of the final provisions in key chapters of the guidelines. It is informed by the positions put forward by countries throughout the drafting process as well as by the evolution of negotiating texts prior to the finalization of the guidelines. The review finds that cop 24/cma1.3 failed, for the most part, to uphold the principles laid out in the preamble to the Paris Agreement, particularly in relation to human rights; the guidelines make only a few references to human-rights-related principles.

Impacts of Paris Agreement on Russian economy

2018 ◽  
pp. 76-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. A. Makarov ◽  
C. Henry ◽  
V. P. Sergey
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Economic Policy ◽  
Growth Rates ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Gdp Growth ◽  
Russian Economy ◽  
Climate Policies

The paper applies multiregional CGE Economic Policy Projection and Analysis (EPPA) model to analyze major risks the Paris Agreement on climate change adopted in 2015 brings to Russia. The authors come to the conclusion that if parties of the Agreement meet their targets that were set for 2030 it may lead to the decrease of average annual GDP growth rates by 0.2-0.3 p. p. Stricter climate policies beyond this year would bring GDP growth rates reduction in2035-2050 by additional 0.5 p. p. If Russia doesn’t ratify Paris Agreement, these losses may increase. In order to mitigate these risks, diversification of Russian economy is required.

Constitutional and Legal Restrictions in the European Union Countries in the Context of the COVID 19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
A. V. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
European Union Countries ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the norms of international law and the legislation of the EU countries. The list of main provisions of constitutional and legal restrictions in the European Union countries is presented. The application of the norms is described Human rights conventions. The principle of implementing legal acts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered. A comparative analysis of legal restrictive measures in the States of the European Union is carried out.

Introductory Note

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Public ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document