Remedies for loss and damage caused by climate change from the dimension of climate justice

Mingde Cao,Qi Wang,Yu Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2016.1258795

2016-10-01

Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment

Abstract:Adverse consequences to the ecological system and human health caused by impacts potentially attributable to climate change have already drawn great and widespread concern of many scientists and international organizations. However, we still have a hard time determining exactly the impact of climate change on the environment or the damage that climate change inflicts on countries comprising small islands or low-lying lands in light of today’s science and technology. The progress for dealing with the issue of loss and damage has been struggling for a long time from the beginning to the present. In this paper, the author begins by summarizing talks on the concept and the positions of commentators. The author is proposing that the development of future climate negotiations and rule-making process be based on global climate justice as a standard for measuring value. Also, the author proposes that a holistic view of climate justice be established. Generally, three aspects of climate justice can be derived. First, the dimension of human rights protection shows that protection of fundamental human rights is a logical precondition if small-island and low-lying countries are able to achieve climate justice. Second, the definite and traditional concepts of distributive justice and corrective justice hold the view that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should be upheld as a basic standard of allocating rights and duties associated with climate change. Third, climate justice requires that any state follow the “no-harm principle,” which is regarded as an international customary rule. According to the principle, the obligation of states to prevent the use of their territory for causing trans-boundary harm to the environment shall be a violation of state responsibility, which incurs international punishment. Then we put forward three remedial approaches in light of climate justice, including the approach of State Responsibility (SR) based on the principles and rules of international human rights law and international environmental law. Based on clear rules, the judge can determine whether the damaging behavior or the damage perpetrated by a state party constitutes a state responsibility. The International Environmental Regulation (IEB), which means solving the problems within the framework established by the Conventions on Climate Change, takes advantage of the market mechanisms and incentives such as fund and insurance support system to relieve or compensate the loss and damage. International Environmental Dispute Settlement Mechanism (IEDSM), which includes the means such as consultations, negotiations, nonmandatory ways and international arbitration, international judicial ways to solve these disputes, functions as a procedural safeguard. As an active promoter of global climate governance, China should no doubt stand by the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) and take it as a basis for negotiations, actively strengthen the work of South-South cooperation, fulfill her international climate commitments without reservation, vigorously develop a low-carbon economy, and actively promote international negotiations on the subject of loss and damage.