Page - 192 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 192 -
Text of the Page - 192 -
192 F.SimlingerandB.Mayer
7.4.3 RelationshipBetween theClimateRegime
and theNo-HarmPrinciple
Apossibleobjectiontothereasoningpresentedinthissectionrelatestotheexistence
of a treaty-based international climate law regime. Some scholars argued that the
UNFramework Convention on Climate Change and following treaties as well as
decisionsadoptedbytheConferenceofthePartiesprecludedtheapplicationofnorms
of international lawsuchas theno-harmprincipleandthe lawofstate responsibility
forL&D(seeZahar2015).
Suchanargumentwouldhavetobebasedonthedoctrineof lexspecialis(“special
law”). This notion prescribes that amore specific rule prevails over a general one.
However, this is only the casewhen there is an actual norm conflict between the
two rules. In this context, the InternationalLawCommission stated that for the lex
specialisdoctrinetoapply,“it isnotenoughthat thesamesubjectmatter isdealtwith
by twoprovisions; theremust be some actual inconsistency between them, or else
a discernible intention that one provision is to exclude the other” (ILC 2001:140;
seealsoMavrommatisPalestineConcessions:31).Absentsuchactual inconsistency
or discernible intention to exclude themore general rule, both rules should be “be
interpretedsoastogiverisetoasinglesetofcompatibleobligations”(ILC2006:178).
Thereiscertainlynogroundtobelievethatstates,asawhole, intendedtoexclude
the applicationof theno-harm rulewhenestablishing the international climate law
regime. Similarly, inconsistencies between the climate regime and the customary
no-harm rule do not necessarily arise (Mayer 2014;Verheyen 2005). The ultimate
objective of theUNFCCC, to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interferencewith
theclimatesystem”(UNFCCC,art.2), iscertainlynotinconsistentwiththeno-harm
principle,andthespecificcommitmentsmadebystatesundersuccessiveinternational
climate agreements do not exclude the existence of more demanding obligations
undercustomaryinternational law.Theobligationtopreventsignificant transbound-
aryharm, insofar as itmayapply to emissionsof greenhousegases, should thusbe
interpretedconsistentlywith theclimate regime“soas togive rise toa single set of
compatibleobligations” (ILC2006a,para.4).Hence, thecommitmentsentered into
through the climate regime do not replace the no-harm rule—and vice versa –but
both simultaneouslywork towards bringing states closer to compliancewith their
obligationsarisingunder international law(seeMayer2018b). In this regardanum-
ber of vulnerable states havemade several statements emphasising that successive
internationalclimatechangeagreementsdonot inprinciplederogate theapplication
ofprinciplesofgeneral international law(seee.g.DeclarationsofKiribati,Fiji, and
Nauruuponsignatureof theUNFCCCandotherdeclarationsuponsignatureof the
ParisAgreement.Arguably, the customary rule, should it apply andbe triggered in
the context of climate change, requires efforts that go beyond that of the climate
regime inso far as thosearenot sufficient toactuallypreventharm.
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Title
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Subtitle
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Authors
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Publisher
- Springer Open
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 580
- Keywords
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Categories
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima