Page - 54 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

54 I.Wallimann-Helmeret al. between outcome responsibility and remedial responsibility: outcome responsibil- ity denotes responsibility for bringing about a certain state of affairs and remedial responsibilitydenotes responsibility toevenoutharm(HartandHonoré2002;Hon- oré 2010;Miller 2007).Whilst thefirst kind of responsibility is backward-looking the second looks forward. Inprinciple, both these conceptionsof responsibility are independent. Irrespectiveofwhether or not someonebrought about a certainharm, shecanberesponsible to(help) remedythatharm.Webelievethatseeingsomebody drowningputsusunderduty tohelp, irrespectiveofwhetherweare responsible for that person drowning. By contrast, being outcome responsible for a certain harm does not always imply responsibility to (help) remedy this harm. Somebodywho trips and falls therebypushing another person in front of himmight be responsible in termsofoutcomebutnotnecessarily in termsofremedy. If theonepushingcould not avoid trippingand tripping is not due to a fault of her own then this is bad luck forbothpersons involvedbutnoone isusually seenunderduty for remedy. In order to legitimately claima connection betweenoutcome responsibility and remedial responsibility, somekindofnormativelyrelevant tiebetweenthe twomust beestablished.Miller (2007) suggestsmoral failure, responsibility for theoutcome andmere causal contribution as legitimate reasons for assigning remedial respon- sibilities based on outcome responsibility. If this kind of connection is or can be established, thenweare in the realmofcompensatory justice,because in thiscase it is theassignmentof responsibility foracertainstateofaffairs that justifies remedial responsibility.Generallyspeaking,themostobviouswaytodifferentiateresponsibil- ities incaseofharmlikeclimateL&Dwouldbetoassignresponsibilitiesforremedy inproportiontothecontributiontotheharm,likelevelsofgreenhousegasemissions. IncaseofL&D, the reasons linkingoutcomeresponsibility to remedial responsibil- itywould amount towrongful emitting, non-wrongful but significant contribution to theharm,orcausal contribution.Whicheverof these three reasons isoperative in justifyingaconnectionbetweenoutcomeresponsibilityandremedial responsibility, itoperateswithin theframingofcompensatory justice.Thosebringingaboutaharm are assigned responsibilities tomakewhole again thosewhomwere impacted by theirbehaviour. The potential reasons for linking outcome responsibilitywith remedial respon- sibilitymentioned above are backward-looking, as is compensatory justice.When aharmhasmaterialised, considerations of compensatory justice aimat identifying thoseresponsiblefor theharminorder toassignremedial responsibilities.However, in lightofourdiscussionsucha (purely)backward-lookingassignmentof remedial responsibilitiesmaynotbe fully appropriate for two reasons.First, in lightofpara- graph 52 of decision 1/CP.21 it may become politically unfeasible since it would amount to compensation and liability. Thismeans that a “responsibility vacuum” mightemergewhen, forpolitical reasons,duty-bearersdonot stepup to their reme- dial responsibilities. Furthermore, only a portion of experienced L&Dwould be coveredwereremedial responsibility tobebasedonoutcomeresponsibilityonly.As shownbefore, natural climate variability aswell as socio-economic factors on the groundcontribute tomuchof theL&Daswell.