Remedial Responsibilities Research Articles

Rethinking Responsibility for Mitigating Climate Change Harm: Advocating Remedial Responsibility

ABSTRACT Global climate change poses an urgent crisis that requires immediate action. However, conceptualizing human responsibility for mitigating the harm caused by climate change has proved challenging. I assess traditional concepts of moral responsibility and political responsibility for structural injustice and demonstrate that both have notable shortcomings. Building upon the limitations of these concepts, I establish five criteria that a responsibility concept must fulfill to be both effective and fair in mitigating the harm of climate change. Guided by these criteria, I propose remedial responsibility as a more appropriate concept that better meets these requirements.

A bridge over sustainable water: Politicians' perceptions about the preconditions for collective action.

Sustainable water resource management is a core interest for all societies. As water systems are often common resources, the management of water systems requires coordinated action among actors along the water. For flowing water, a complication for coordination is upstream-downstream relations where what happens upstream affects downstream, but not the other way around. In this study we present results from a survey experiment with politicians in Sweden, focusing on whether and to what extent their willingness to cooperate is affected by their placement upstream or downstream along a fictive water system. Our findings indicate that politicians from upstream and downstream municipalities share the view that upstream politicians bear greater responsibility for undertaking preventive actions and are willing to assume remedial responsibility for problems caused by them. These results challenge the notion that self-interest is the primary obstacle to resolving environmental collective action problems.

V—Who is Responsible for the Climate Change Problem?

Abstract According to the Polluter Pays Principle, excessive emitters of greenhouse gases have special obligations to remedy the problem of climate change, because they are the ones who have caused it. But what kind of problem is climate change? In this paper I argue that as a moral problem, climate change has a more complex causal structure than many proponents of the Polluter Pays Principle seem to recognize: it is a problem resulting from the interaction of anthropogenic climate effects with the underlying vulnerability and exposure of human communities and other things of value. This means that we should acknowledge more pathways by which human agency contributes to the climate problem and, accordingly, a different landscape of contribution-based remedial responsibilities.

You were bombed and now you have to pay for it: Questioning the positive obligations in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

AbstractOne of the central components of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is its victim assistance and environmental remediation provisions (known collectively as the Treaty’s ‘positive obligations’). While there is much to celebrate about efforts to remedy the damage caused by nuclear weapons, the way the TPNW distributes responsibility for this work is troubling. Under the Treaty, the primary responsibility for fulfilling the positive obligations is placed on the states parties that have individuals under their jurisdiction who are affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons and areas under their jurisdiction or control that have been contaminated by the use or testing of nuclear weapons (‘the affected states’) despite the fact that, often, these were not the states responsible for detonating the nuclear weapons. This article examines and critiques the reasons the Treaty’s drafters placed the main responsibility for victim assistance and environmental remediation on affected states. It argues that the rationales underpinning these provisions rest on shaky grounds, and that the Treaty’s approach has potential negative ramifications for nuclear disarmament and understanding the history of the use and testing of nuclear weapons. Further, it explores how the Treaty may play into worrying broader dynamics in public international law whereby the Global North is frequently absolved of responsibility for the harms it causes while the Global South is saddled with obligations to redress an array of harms.

From the thin concept of quality to the thick one: remedial responsibilities of the universities

This article explores the notion of the responsibility of the university in the global context and attempts to link it to the concept of quality broadly conceived. Specifically, it is argued that there are certain similarities between the discourses of philosophy of higher education (global responsibility of the university) and political philosophy (global justice). It is argued that it is possible to apply David Miller’s notion of remedial responsibility to universities. Based on this, the article offers a dynamic model of university responsibility derived from Georgian higher education reality, which offers promise for improving the quality of university life (understood as an overall betterment of quality of well-being of the students, the teaching and administrative staff). It is suggested that such an approach provides the basis for the richer, thick concept of quality against the thinner one, which only focuses on measuring outcomes and economic efficiency.

Who is Responsible for Remedying the Harm Caused to Children of Prisoners?

ABSTRACT It has been argued that the social circumstances of many children of prisoners goes against established principles of social justice. In this paper the proper allocation of responsibility for remedying this social injustice is discussed. Through a discussion of four principles for allocating remedial responsibility, it is argued that the responsibility for children of incarcerated parents is shared among several actors, including the incarcerated parent, remaining caregivers, prison officials, social work professionals, and, to some extent, members of the wider community. While incarcerated parents are partially responsible for remedying the harm caused to their children, prison officials have the responsibility to uphold the types of prison conditions under which incarcerated parents are able to fulfill their responsibilities to their children and socially contribute to their well-being. Similarly, whereas the main responsibility to care for the children of incarcerated parents falls on the caregivers (such as the remaining parent or other family relatives), states are at the same time responsible for implementing social welfare policies of the sort that can help caregivers fulfill their responsibilities for the well-being of these children. As for individual members of the wider community, they have an obligation not to contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of the families of incarcerated individuals.

Reducing Climate Change Harms: How to Make Remedial Responsibilities Applicable

Abstract Nation-states are seen as reasonable candidates to whom to assign remedial responsibilities for climate change harms. A natural question arises: Based on what justification should these responsibilities be assigned to states? Three prominent principles have been proposed: the “Polluter pays,” the “Beneficiary pays,” and the “Ability to pay.” However, each principle faces important objections when considered in isolation. Building on David Miller's multi-principle theory of remedial responsibility, I propose and justify an account of remedial responsibility for the case of climate change. I complement the account with a guiding algorithm that arranges these (and more) principles in a systematic way to make remedial responsibilities for climate change harms applicable. This guiding algorithm resolves the objections that arise when the principles are applied in isolation.

From shame to guilt: negotiating moral and legal responsibility within apologies for historical institutional abuse

AbstractThis article explores the role of apology in addressing moral and legal responsibility for historical institutional abuse (HIA). Drawing on extensive fieldwork in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it analyses juridical techniques within official apologies, principally by the Catholic Church, to circumvent legal responsibility for HIA: the use of language, the avoidance of tangible redress, and the preference for offering private apologies. Moving beyond the literature, it highlights a more nuanced range of legal and ideological barriers to sincere apologies: the role of canon law, the role of lawyers, and concerns with multiple audiences. The article argues that traversing the complex moral and legal dimensions of apology entails moving from the general expression of remorse and shaming of the self to the specific acceptance of harm to others and responsibility for repair. It concludes by reflecting on the core elements of ‘remedial responsibility’, new classifications of apologies, and their broader therapeutic value.

The right to immigrate and responsibility for the past

ABSTRACT Do past state actions, such as the American conquest of northern Mexico, the British colonization of South Asia, and the Spanish expulsion of the Sephardim and Moriscos, grant contemporary Mexicans, South Asians, and the descendants of the Sephardim and Moriscos a particular right to immigrate to the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain respectively? In this paper I examine three theoretical models for addressing this question: retrospective responsibility for historic injustice; the principle of coercively constituted identities; and the theory of remedial responsibility. I argue that remedial responsibility best justifies a particular right to immigrate through responsibility for the past for three reasons. First, it relieves us of the epistemological task of establishing causal responsibility. Second, it lessens the normative task of identifying a theory of unjust harm to establish moral responsibility. Finally, it facilitates the normative task of ranking the claims to immigrate of different individuals.

Consumption-Based Emissions Accounting and Historical Emissions

ABSTRACT This paper argues that, unlike the production-based emissions accounting (on which emissions are attributed to producers of goods and services), the consumption-based emissions accounting (on which emissions are attributed to consumers of these goods and services) can solve the problem of historical emissions. This problem concerns the question of how to assign remedial responsibility for emissions that were made by people who are now dead. Since historical emissions are embedded in the goods consumed by present consumers, and since present consumers can (unlike past producers) do something about their emissions, a consumption-based accounting can contribute to solving the climate crisis.

The social question and the transnational constitutional space

AbstractAlthough markets are becoming increasingly transnationalized, the social question appears to remain firmly national. The aim of this article is to discuss under what circumstances, if at all, the social question ought to have a transnational dimension and what form it should take. As such, the article seeks to build a normative framework that abandons the conventional taxonomies of moral duties and instead links the concept of responsibility to governance, which takes place in the space of the polis through a reliance on questions of group agency. To this end, the article will draw on different aspects of responsibility. Having established a link between the social question and the concept of responsibility based on outcome and remedial responsibility, it will draw on collective and shared responsibility to consider what, if any, transnational dimension the social question should have.

Who should fight domination? Individual responsibility and structural injustice

Who is responsible for fighting domination? Answering this question, I argue, requires taking the structural dimension of domination seriously to avoid unwillingly reproducing domination in the name of justice. Having cast domination as a structural injustice that refers to structurally constituted positions of power and disempowerment, I show that the outcome-based, the capacity-based and the social connection model suggested in literature on responsibility, fail to fully meet this challenge. Drawing on insights from all of them, I propose an account that proves more sensitive towards the power dynamics at play in fighting domination. It is based on a fundamental duty of justice, which gives rise to two kinds of responsibility. Dominators, dominated and peripheral agents share political responsibility for domination in virtue of reproducing domination by occupying a position within structures of dominating power; they are required to acknowledge and undermine their position of power or disempowerment rather than simply using and thus tacitly reaffirming it. Political responsibility for domination is distinct from moral responsibility for acting within contexts of domination; in fact, ignoring this difference risks reproducing rather than transforming relations of domination. Bystanders who are not implicated in reproducing domination bear limited remedial responsibility to support this struggle.

Spanish citizenship and responsibility for the past: the case of the Sephardim, Moriscos, and Saharawis

ABSTRACT In 2015, Spain passed a law expediting citizenship for the descendants of the Sephardic Jews expelled in 1492, but not to the descendants of the Moriscos expelled in 1609. In this essay, I use Spain’s 2015 citizenship law as a test case for assessing three normative models for linking citizenship with collective responsibility for the past: reparations for historic injustice; the principle of coercively constituted identities; and remedial responsibility. I argue that the first two models confront intractable philosophical problems that are circumvented by the third model, remedial responsibility, which prioritizes contemporary suffering and looks to the past only to identify agents who must provide a remedy. However, remedial responsibility subordinates the obligation to expedite citizenship to descendants of the Sephardim and the Moriscos in favor of the Saharawis, citizens of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara who still languish in refugee camps forty years after decolonization.

Evaluation of multiple PRPs' contributions to soil contamination in reclaimed sites around an abandoned smelter

Although soil contamination must be remediated by the polluters under current legal frameworks in numerous countries, the allocation of responsibilities for soil clean-up is still challenging in the case of multiple potentially responsible parties (PRPs). This study evaluated the individual contributions of two PRPs (Owners A & B) to heavy metal contamination in the soil environment near an abandoned smelter and compared the results with those from the conventional Gore Factor (GF) method. The soil in the study area was widely contaminated by various heavy metals. In particular, the arsenic concentration exceeded the local regulatory level of 25 mg kg−1 at all investigated sites. Arsenic components were frequently observed in the form of iron oxides, and they decreased with increasing distance from the smelter chimney. This distribution supported the premise that the arsenic mainly originated from the chimney through oxidation processes of iron-containing ores under high temperature. The GF results attributed greater responsibility to Owner A than Owner B, while the estimated arsenic masses (based on the field investigation) indicated the contrary. These results could be caused by insufficient information for the GF evaluation, because the change in smelter ownership and long history of contamination obscure important data, such as the amount of total refined ores and the efficiency of air pollution prevention facilities in the smelter. Therefore, more field-based approaches must be considered more importantly for the evaluation of multiple PRPs' remediation responsibilities, especially in areas with long-term contamination.

Human bodies as chemical sensors: A history of biomonitoring for environmental health and regulation

The testing of human blood and urine for signs of chemical exposure has become the “gold standard” of environmental public health, leading to ongoing population studies in the US and Europe. Such methods first emerged over a century ago in medical and occupational contexts, as a means to calibrate drug doses for patients and prevent injury to workers from chemical or radiation exposure. This paper analyzes how human bodies have come to serve as unconscious sensors of their environments: containers of chemical information determined by expert testers. As seen in the case of lead testing in the US, these bodily traces of contaminants can provide compelling evidence about dangerous exposures in everyday life, useful in achieving stronger regulation of industry. The use of genetic testing of workers by Dow Chemical provides an example of industry itself undertaking biomonitoring, though the company discontinued the program at the same time its studies indicated chromosomal damage in connection with occupational exposure to certain chemicals. In this case and others, biomonitoring raises complex questions about informing subjects, interpreting exposure in the many cases for which health effects at low doses are unknown, and who should take responsibility for protection, compensation, or remediation. Further, the history of biomonitoring complicates how we understand human ‘experience’ of the global environment by pointing to the role of non-sensory—yet detectable—bodily exposures.

Displacement, Protection and Responsibility: A Case for Safe Areas

This article makes the normative case for safe areas as a strategy of civilian protection in forced displacement crises. We start from the idea that the displaced—especially those who remain within the borders of their home state—are in a particularly precarious situation which can, in some circumstances, activate a remedial responsibility to provide protection on the part of the international community. We then argue that this responsibility extends beyond the provision of asylum to include efforts both to prevent displacement and to facilitate the return of displaced persons, and that safe areas may be an important tool to achieve these goals. However, we also note two major risks associated with safe areas which must be considered and mitigated: that they increase rather than decrease overall displacement, and that they diminish rather than enhance protection. We conclude by suggesting why and how the shared responsibility to protect through safe areas should be fairly distributed within the international community.

The Beneficiary Pays Principle and Strict Liability: exploring the normative significance of causal relations

I will discuss the relationship between two different accounts of remedial duty ascriptions. According to one account, the beneficiary account, individuals who benefit innocently from injustices ought to bear remedial responsibilities towards the victims of these injustices. According to another account, the causal account, individuals who caused injustices (even innocently) ought to bear remedial duties towards the victim. In this paper, I examine the relation between the principles central to these accounts: the Beneficiary Pays Principle and the well-established principle of Strict Liability in law. I argue that both principles display a strong yet unexplored similarity as they make certain kinds of causal connection sufficient for incurring liability. Because of this similarity, I suggest that insights into the Beneficiary Pays Principle can be gained from exploring its relation with Strict Liability. In particular, I examine two new positive arguments that could be adapted to support of the Beneficiary Pays Principle: the Minimising Injustice Argument and the Normative Connection Argument. However, I’ll show that only one of those arguments, namely the Normative Connection Argument, can truly support the Beneficiary Pays Principle. I conclude that, if you endorse the Normative Connection Argument for Strict Liability, you have at least a strong prima facie reason to endorse the parallel argument for the Beneficiary Pays Principle.

Decommissioning and remediation challenges for the petroleum industry

The life cycle of the petroleum industry in Australia is necessitating decommissioning and remediation of aging onshore and offshore assets. This activity provides significant challenges for operators. Decommissioning and remediation is neither a core capability of operators nor a key driver of value for businesses that derive value from exploration, development and production. There is no revenue stream at the completion of decommissioning and remediation. This exacerbates the need for accurate cost estimates and well-planned projects. International experience has demonstrated that remediation costs have often significantly exceeded provisioning for rehabilitation. These issues are felt even more acutely in a low oil price environment. Finally, some Australian jurisdictions are currently developing policy frameworks and guidelines around the decommissioning and remediation responsibilities. This creates uncertainty for operators in planning and costing decommissioning and remediation work scopes. As well as satisfying legislative and policy requirements of governments, operators need to manage a range of other stakeholders that have interests in the decommissioning methodologies and remediation outcomes. This paper addresses these challenges and proposes that innovative decommissioning and remediation strategies are required to shorten project execution times, reduce costs, maintain high safety standards and produce suitable environmental outcomes. Decommissioning and remediation requirements differ significantly from development requirements; decommissioning project organisational capabilities should be structured to reflect these requirements. Case studies are used to demonstrate that effective waste management strategies are key determinants of success due to high waste disposal costs and the sensitivity of waste handling and disposal for key stakeholders.

Remedial Responsibility for Severe Poverty: Justice or Humanity?

AbstractRemedial responsibility is the prospective responsibility to assist those in great need. With tens of millions of people worldwide suffering from severe poverty, questions about the attribution of remedial responsibility and the nature of the relevant duties of assistance are among the most pressing of our time. This article concerns the question of whether remedial responsibility for severe poverty is a matter of justice or of humanity. I discuss three kinds of situation in which an agent owes remedial responsibility to another suffering from severe poverty. In the first, the remedially responsible agent foreseeably and avoidably caused the poverty. In the second, the poverty was caused by forces outside the control of any agent, such as natural disaster. And in the third situation, the agent who was originally attributed remedial responsibility fails to fulfil it, and so remedial responsibility for the poverty in question is acquired by a secondary bearer. According to David Miller, remedial responsibility is a matter of justice in the first two situations, but not in the third. I argue that his grounds for thinking that remedial responsibility in the second situation are in tension with his view that remedial responsibility is not a matter of justice in the third situation. This has important implications in our world in which remedial responsibilities too often go unfulfilled.

Abusive Tax Avoidance and Responsibilities of Tax Professionals

Abusive tax avoidance reduces the effectiveness and equity of fiscal institutions, and hence contributes to significant levels of deprivation in both developed and developing countries. In the first part of this paper, we outline the main reasons for the existence and scale of abusive tax avoidance, with emphasis on factors that exacerbate the problem in the developing world. However, our main project in this paper is normative. We argue that tax professionals, such as lawyers, accountants and financial advisors, have strong obligations to help remedy the deprivation caused by abusive tax avoidance. To make our case, we present three connective grounds that serve as criteria for remedial responsibilities: causal contribution, benefit and capacity to assist. Although these criteria sometimes pull in different directions, when all three converge there are especially strong grounds for assigning responsibilities to the relevant set of actors. Applying this convergence approach, we demonstrate that tax professionals contribute majorly to abusive tax avoidance, benefit greatly from its persistence, and have significant capacities to reduce its extent. One result of this analysis is that tax professionals—especially large accountancy, legal and securities firms—ought to do much more to address tax avoidance than merely comply with existing legislation. We also argue that these responsibilities are consistent with, indeed required by, widely accepted standards of professional integrity.