State Responsibility for Climate Change Damage and the Evolving Regime of Human Rights

Abstract

Individual States are required to reduce their emissions in order to meet the collective goal of keeping global warming to an increase of no more 2 °C but ideally strive to limit temperature rises to 1.5 °C. States have expressed ambitions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions although largely have yet to translate them into policies. Inadequate climate mitigation policies may fall foul of the obligation to reduce GHG emissions, which is a due diligence obligation. Making any successful determination would depend on the status of the jurisprudence on the formation of a customary obligation on the prevention of the risk of transboundary harm in climate change-related human rights. Progressive norms in human rights jurisprudence inform the content of the due diligence obligation and positive duties thereunder. The implication is that responsibility for inadequate climate mitigation policies, as supported by the recent jurisprudence on the failure of due diligence duties in context of environment-based human rights, may be invoked. It is noted that arguments have been advanced that the obligation to prevent climate change harm presents challenges in establishing the elements necessary for responsibility, particularly in respect to defining the internationally wrongful act and causation. However, developments in international human rights jurisprudence supports positive due diligence obligations in preventing climate risks, raising the theoretical possibilities of an international decision following Urgenda. This article observes the possibility of such a trend within States’ customary obligation to prevent transboundary harm with respect to States’ inadequate climate mitigation policies.