8) Environment and Climate Flashcards
What is securitization, and how has it been applied to climate change in debates within the UN Security Council (UNSC)?
(Hint: Think about the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory and the concept of “threat multiplier.”)
Answer:
Securitization, as defined by the Copenhagen School, involves framing an issue as an existential threat requiring extraordinary measures beyond normal political discourse. Climate change is increasingly securitized as a “threat multiplier,” exacerbating conflicts over resources, migration pressures, and regional instability. In UNSC debates (2007 and 2011), proponents highlighted its role in threatening peace and security, though concerns remain about militarization and marginalization of vulnerable populations.
Connection:
This framing emphasizes the global nature of climate impacts, fostering international cooperation. However, it risks prioritizing state security over human security.
What does the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) emphasize in climate governance, and where is it codified?
(Hint: Refer to UNFCCC Article 3.1 and its application in the Paris Agreement.)
Answer:
CBDR, codified in UNFCCC Article 3.1, recognizes that:
Developed countries bear greater responsibility for historical emissions. Differentiated obligations are necessary to achieve equity and effective climate governance.
Text of Article 3.1 (UNFCCC):
“The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”
Connection:
In the Paris Agreement, CBDR is operationalized through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), allowing flexibility for developing nations while ensuring accountability from developed ones.
What are extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), and how do they relate to the concept of transboundary harm in climate governance?
(Hint: Link to the Maastricht Principles and the ICJ initiative by Vanuatu.)
Answer:
ETOs require states to address actions causing harm beyond their borders, aligning with the principle of preventing transboundary harm. The Maastricht Principles guide these obligations by mandating international cooperation to protect global public goods.
Text of Maastricht Principle 8:
“States must desist from conduct that impairs the ability of another State or its people to comply with their own human rights obligations.”
Connection:
Vanuatu’s ICJ initiative emphasizes ETOs to address global emissions’ cumulative impacts, urging states to prevent foreseeable harm to vulnerable populations.
How do procedural rights enhance climate governance, and what framework institutionalizes these rights?
(Hint: Consider the Aarhus Convention and the concept of participatory environmental governance.)
Answer:
Procedural rights ensure transparency and inclusivity by guaranteeing access to information, participation in decision-making, and justice. The Aarhus Convention institutionalizes these rights, empowering citizens to hold governments accountable for climate inaction.
Text of Aarhus Convention, Article 1:
“In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters.”
Connection:
Cases like KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz demonstrate the utility of procedural rights in ensuring fair and transparent climate policies.
What is the Paris Agreement’s hybrid governance model, and how does it balance flexibility and accountability?
(Hint: Think about voluntary NDCs and the concept of global stocktakes.)
Answer:
The Paris Agreement’s hybrid model combines:
Voluntary NDCs tailored to national circumstances. Binding obligations for transparency and periodic global stocktakes to assess progress.
Text of Paris Agreement, Article 4.9:
“Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years… informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake.”
Connection:
This approach balances state sovereignty with accountability, fostering iterative ambition and peer pressure to ensure compliance with global goals.
What is the right to a healthy environment, and how does it integrate environmental protection with human rights?
(Hint: Refer to the Paris Agreement’s preamble and the concept of inter-generational justice.)e
Answer:
The right to a healthy environment bridges environmental and human rights, addressing climate impacts on life, health, and cultural rights. The Paris Agreement acknowledges this right, emphasizing protection for vulnerable groups and future generations.
Text of Paris Agreement (Preamble):
“Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote, and consider their respective obligations on human rights… and the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities, and people in vulnerable situations.”
Connection:
This right supports inter-generational justice by ensuring sustainable policies that protect present and future populations.
What are the risks and opportunities of framing climate change as a security issue within international governance?
(Hint: Consider the concepts of human security and the “threat multiplier.”)
Answer:
Framing climate change as a security issue:
Opportunities: Elevates the urgency of climate action, mobilizing resources and fostering international cooperation. Risks: Risks prioritizing state-centric solutions and militarization, potentially sidelining human-centric approaches.
Connection:
The UNSC’s debates highlight this dual-edged framing, emphasizing the need to integrate human security principles to address systemic vulnerabilities.
How does the principle of non-refoulement apply to climate-induced displacement, and what challenges does it face in international law?
(Hint: Link to the 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33 and the concept of environmental refugees.)
Answer:
Non-refoulement prohibits returning individuals to territories where their life or freedom is threatened. Though not explicitly covering climate refugees, it has been invoked in cases like Teitiota v. New Zealand to argue for protection from environmental harm.
Text of 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 33(1):
“No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.”
Connection:
This principle underscores the need for broader legal recognition of climate-induced displacement as a legitimate basis for asylum.
