The Real Climate Criminals
Climate change is one of the biggest problems that the world faces today. Rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and erratic temperatures affect everything in some shape or form. Scientists agree that human activity is the main cause of this. However, under international law, it is unclear whether or not nations should be held responsible for climate change. Many people believe that countries causing greater pollution should be held legally responsible for their damage. On the other hand, is it truly fair to put such a task on a few countries?
Under international law, countries (called states) are under many rules. For example, international law contains a state responsibility clause, essentially stating that a country can be punished if it breaks an international rule or harms another country. In fact, there is a rule called the “no-harm principle.” It forbids countries from doing anything within their borders that seriously harms the environment of other countries. For example, if one country pollutes a river that flows into another country, it can be scrutinized. This idea goes back to cases like the Trail Smelter Arbitration, where Canada had to pay the United States because a Canadian factory had polluted the U.S. with its smoke, causing damage land. If this were applied to climate change, it could be argued that countries with greater greenhouse gas emissions are harming other nations with their contributions to climate change. This idea raises the question: can nations be legally punished for their inability to stop climate change?
Some people argue that this same rule should apply to climate change. However, it is extremely difficult to evaluate which countries release the most greenhouse gases. Unlike the Trail Smelter case, climate change comes from many different sources, and it’s difficult to show whether one country caused the greatest harm.
Major international agreements about climate change include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC established the overall goal of preventing climate change, while the Paris Agreement established that each country must reduce its emissions individually. These documents overall call on countries to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they release and to report on this endeavor. And while these treaties do provide some framework, they do not state any specific punishments for countries that fail to follow these rules. These treaties promote accountability but do not specify any punishments. Essentially, the system is based on trust and agreement rather than consequences.
As climate change becomes more prevalent, the legal system begins to take notice of these issues. For example, a recent court case, Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands (2019), evaluated this issue. In this case, the Dutch court ordered that the government had to work toward reducing carbon emissions for the safety of the people. Again, the case Torres Strait Islanders v. Australia (2022) admitted that Australia’s ignorance toward climate change had violated the rights of the islanders. Together, both cases reveal that international law is putting some effort toward holding countries accountable for being inactive on global issues. While the law doesn’t provide any consequences for climate change, it does link climate change to human rights, making it a greater issue.
Countries should be held responsible for the way they affect the Earth. However, it is extremely hard to legally blame a country for climate change. One reason is that climate change is caused by multiple countries, so, in theory, each country should pay a piece of the price. Additionally, it is almost impossible to determine which country is causing the largest amount of climate change. Finally, perhaps the greatest issue of them all is that there is no enforcement or court determining the outcome of these issues, providing consequences to countries, or creating a more defined environmental law. Due to all these issues, the question of whether countries will put their efforts toward climate change depends on the public.
In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an opinion on whether or not countries have the obligation to prevent climate change. Though the court may not have made a decree yet, its future opinion could help define climate change at an international level. If the ICJ recognizes that countries have the duty to protect the planet, it could become a lot easier for legal claims to be made against ignorant countries.
As climate change gets worse, the pressure to create real change is increasing. Currently, countries cannot be held responsible for climate change under modern international law. But it must be changed in the future. The people and the UN must put their efforts into protecting the environment and discrediting those who harm the world. If not for themselves, then for the future. One day, international law may finally be able to hold nations accountable for their inability to protect the planet.