Climatic Change

, Volume 130, Issue 3, pp 371–382 | Cite as

Conceiving the rationale for international climate law

Article

Abstract

A rationale is a reasoned narrative used to justify a norm or set of norms; in turn, it determines the expectations that one holds from the law and provides a framework in which complementary norms are bargained. This article proposes a reflection on the elusive rationale for international climate law. Its first, analytical claim is that there is currently no consensus on such a rationale—an absence likely to impede climate negotiations. References to “equity,” “common but differentiated responsibilities” and “respective capabilities” in existing climate law provide insufficient guidance to ongoing negotiations, reflecting an agreement to disagree rather than a common vision. The construction of a rationale is prevented by protracted disputes regarding the ethical grounds relevant to climate law and by the ambivalence of national interests, which are essentially social constructs. A second, normative claim of this article is that the rationale for climate law should be construed as a hybrid narrative reconciling moral aspirations with pragmatic constraints. Thus, it is submitted that the concept of complex interdependence could be applied to climate change to emphasize existing national interests in fostering global sustainable development. Although important debates remain, complex interdependence provides essential guidance by calling states to take moral arguments into account, in their own interest—when such arguments are widely accepted by civil societies—in order to avoid human destitution and resentment and to preclude the possibility of disastrous consequences on international peace and security.

References

  1. Akhavan P (2005) Justice, power, and the realities of interdependence: lessons from the Milosevic and Hussein trials. Cornell Int Law J 38:973–982Google Scholar
  2. AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention) (2012) Report on the workshop on equitable access to sustainable development. FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/INF.3/Rev.1Google Scholar
  3. Beitz C (1975) Justice and international relations. Philos Public Aff 4:360–389Google Scholar
  4. Buchner B et al (2011) The landscape of climate finance. Clim Pol InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  5. Caney S (2005) Cosmopolitan justice, responsibility, and global climate change. Leiden J Int Law 18:747–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawford N (2009) Homo politicus and argument (nearly) all the way down: persuasion in politics. Perspect Polit 7:103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalby S (2013) Climate change as an issue of human security. In: Grasso M, Redclift M (eds) Handbook on climate change and human security. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EU Commission (2001) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. COM(2001)581 finalGoogle Scholar
  9. EU Council (1998) Outcomes of the proceedings of the Environment Council of 16–17 June 1998. 9702/98Google Scholar
  10. Fassin D (2012) Humanitarian reason: a moral history of the present. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardiner S (2011) A perfect moral storm: the ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Humphreys S (2010) Competing claims: human rights and climate harms. In: Humphreys S (ed) Human rights and climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 37–68Google Scholar
  14. ILC (International Law Commission) (2001) Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. A/56/10Google Scholar
  15. INC (International Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change) (1991) Report of the third session (Nairobi, 9–20 September 1991). A/AC.237/12Google Scholar
  16. Kaswan A (2011) Reconciling justice and efficiency: integrating environmental justice into domestic cap-and-trade programs for controlling greenhouse gases. In: Arnold D (ed) The ethics of global climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 232–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keohane R, Nye J (2012) Power and interdependence, 4th edn. Pearson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Keohane R, Victor D (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Polit 9:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koskenniemi M (2005) From apology to utopia: the structure of international legal argument. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayer B (2013) Climate change and international law in the grim days. Eur J Int Law 24:947–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer B (2014) State responsibility and climate change governance. Chinese J Int Law 13 (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  22. Pogge T (2002) World poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Blackwell Publishers, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  23. Posner E, Sunstein C (2007) Climate change justice. Georget Law J 96:1565–1612Google Scholar
  24. Posner E, Weisbach D (2010) Climate change justice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Rajamani L (2006) Differential treatment in international environmental law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rawls J (1999) The law of peoples. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Sands P, Peel J (2012) Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott J, Rajamani L (2012) EU climate change unilateralism. Eur J Int Law 23:469–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singer P (2004) One world: the ethics of globalization. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  30. Singer P, Singer R (1988) The ethics of refugee policy. In: Gibney M (ed) Open borders? Closed societies? The ethical and political issues. Greenwood Press, New York, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  31. UN (2001) Report of the high-level panel on financing for development. A/55/1000Google Scholar
  32. UNCED (UN Conference on Environment and Development) (1992) Report. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I–III)Google Scholar
  33. UNESCO (2000) Earth charter (29 June)Google Scholar
  34. UN Secretary General (2009) Implementing the responsibility to protect. A/63/677Google Scholar
  35. US Congress (1997) 143 Cong Rec (daily ed. 25 July) S8113–8139Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of Singapore Faculty of LawToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations