Seite - 191 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

7 LegalResponses toClimateChange… 191 bereturnedorotherdamagedone.Satisfactionrelatestomeasuressuchasapologies, usually limited to reparation for symbolicharms. Foraclaimforreparationtobesuccessful, it is,presumably,necessarytoestablish thatanactivityhascausedharminawaythattheharmwouldnothaveoccurredwith- out the activity. The causal link betweengreenhouse gas emissions and its adverse impacts isa longandcomplexone,whichwillmakethisargumentdifficult toestab- lish.Yet, the lawof state responsibility appears slightlymoreflexible in this regard thanmanynational legal systems.Rather thanastrict limitation to the“direct”con- sequence, injuryininternational lawisextendedtoanyconsequenceunless it is“too indirect,remote,anduncertaintobeappraised”(TrailSmelterArbitration:1931;ILC 2001:92,para.10).Assessingthevalueoftheinjuryonthebasisofwhichcompensa- tionshouldbepaidwouldhoweverfacemanydifficulties.Particulardamageswould have tobe attributed to climate change in abstraction from themultitudeof natural or social processes in which they unfold. Things that have no inherent economic value(e.g.humanlives,health,culture,ecosystems)wouldhavetobegivenone(see chapterbySerdeczny2018).Thevalueoffutureharmswouldneedtobediscounted at anarbitrary rate.Responsibilitywould thenneed tobeallocatedamongstateson thebasisoftheirrespectiveshareofthewrongdoing,despitetheindeterminacyofthe thresholdbeyondwhichgreenhousegas emissionsbecomeexcessive andwrongful andthecontributionoftheinjuredstate toitsdamages(seee.g.Reis2011:183).This would lead tonever-endingcontroversies, nullifying the roleof international law in settling internationaldisputes throughpacificmeans. However, such a perilous analysismaynot be necessary.When concluding that responsibility for an internationally wrongful act involves an obligation to make “full reparation,” theInternationalLawCommissionreferredto theusualpracticeof international courtsand tribunalsdealingwith relativelysmallquantumofdamages (ILC2000: 2). Like in theNaulilaa case (Responsabilité de l’ Allemagne à raison des dommages causés dans les colonies portugaises du sud de l’Afrique), larger injuries—suchas reparations forwars andothermass atrocities, for unlawful trade measures, fornation-wideexpropriationprogramsorforhazardousactivities—have never led to full reparation, but rather toanagreementon lump-sumcompensation. Relevant judicial decisions or international negotiations considered the capacity of theresponsiblestatetopay,theneedoftheinjuredpartiesforreparation, thepossible disproportionof the injury to the“culpability”of the responsible state, and the lim- its of the fundaments for a collective responsibility (Mayer 2017; Eritrea-Ethiopia ClaimsCommission:522, para. 22;Mayer2016a).The InternationalLawCommis- sionhaspromoted in itsworkon theallocationof loss in thecaseof transboundary harmarisingout of hazardous activities an approach to balance the interests of the responsibleand the injuredparty (ILC2006:58ff).