Page - 190 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

190 F.SimlingerandB.Mayer tionalcourtortribunal,orpossiblybytheInternationalLawCommission,couldhelp disentangling thedebates. In2013, the InternationalLawCommissionhas initiated aprojectontheprotectionof theatmosphere,whichcouldpossiblyaddress theissue ofclimatechange. 7.4.2 StateResponsibilityFollowingaBreach of theNo-HarmPrinciple Thebreachofanobligation is tobesanctioned fora legal systemtobemeaningful. Accordingly, it is awell-establishedprinciple of customary international law that a statewhoseconductbreaches its internationalobligationcommitsaninternationally wrongfulactentailing its international responsibility (ILCArticlesontheResponsi- bility ofStates for InternationallyWrongfulActs, art. 1 and2).Whereas the above section discusseswhether andunderwhich assumptions greenhouse gas emissions couldamounttoabreachoftheno-harmrule,thissectionwilllookatthelegalconse- quences resultingfromtheseemissions,basedon thehypotheticalpremise that they constituteaninternationallywrongfulact. It is important tobear inmindthatcertain questions, suchas foreseeabilityandmultiplicityofactors, areproblematicnotonly concerningthecharacterisationofastateconductasaninternationallywrongfulact, but also toassesswhether anyparticular state is responsible for it. State responsibility involves twomain legal consequences: the continued duty ofperformance—whichinvolves theobligationtoceaseacontinuinginternationally wrongfulact—andtheobligationtomakereparationforanyinjury(ibid,art.28–39). The obligations following a breach of the no-harm rule depends on the content of thisobligation in thecontextofclimatechange,which isdifficult todetermine.Asa consequenceof thecontinueddutyofperformance, stateswouldhave tocease these emissionsthatareconsideredaninternationallywrongfulact.Ofgreater importance to the present discussion is the other consequence involved by the international responsibilityof a state, namely, theobligation tomakegood for any injurycaused bytheinternationallywrongfulact.Thisobligationisgenerallyanalysedbyreference to the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of the FactoryatChorzów,accordingtowhich“reparationmust,asfaraspossible,wipeout alltheconsequencesoftheillegalactandre-establishthesituationwhichwould,inall probability,haveexistedifthatacthadnotbeencommitted”(at47).Accordingly,the InternationalLawCommissionconcludedthat“[f]ullreparationfortheinjurycaused by the internationallywrongful act shall take the formof restitution, compensation andsatisfaction,eithersinglyorincombination”(ILCArticlesontheResponsibility ofStates for InternationallyWrongfulActs,art.34).“Full reparation” isunderstood as reparation for the full value of the injury.Restitution consists often in returning somethingwrongfully taken,whereascompensation—inpractice themostcommon formof reparation—is thepayment of thefinancial valueof something that cannot