State Responsibility for Environmental Harm from Climate Engineering

Abstract

Some have proposed that climate-engineering methods could be developed to offset climate change. However, whilst some of these methods, in particular a form of solar-radiation management referred to as stratospheric aerosol injection (sai), could potentially reduce the overall degree of global warming as well as some associated risks, they are also likely to redistribute some environmental risks globally. Moreover, they could give rise to new risks, raising the issue of legal responsibility for transboundary harm caused. This article examines the question of international accountability of states for an increased risk of environmental harm arising from a large-scale climate intervention using sai, and the legal consequences that would follow. Examination of the applicability of customary rules on state responsibility to sai are useful for understanding the limitations of the existing accountability framework for climate engineering, particularly in the context of global environmental problems involving risk-risk trade-offs and large uncertainties.

Towards Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities

“…Countries that are a party to these agreements have an obli-gation to either apply the instruments domestically or adopt other measures to implement these treaties domestically. The prevention of transboundary harm under customary international law includes harm to the high seas and other areas beyond national jurisdiction (Reichwein et al 2015;Saxler et al 2015;Reynolds 2018).…”

Solar Geoengineering: Social Science, Legal, Ethical, and Economic Frameworks

“…The due diligence standard also incorporates a series of procedural obligations, including duties to exchange information on transboundary risks, to consult and negotiate, and to conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA). However, although customary international norms, such as the no-harm rule, are "significant in providing a general frame of reference" (119), they are regarded as too general and vague to provide an adequate standard of conduct with respect to specific geoengineering interventions, and it may be difficult to prove elements to make out a breach (e.g., proving the causal link between the climate intervention and specific damage) depending on the circumstances (125,126). For example, Craik (127) points out the limitations of the customary law requirement to conduct a transboundary EIA as a mechanism for regulating geoengineering, noting, inter alia, that the process narrowly focuses on the assessment of direct, physical impacts and does not provide for analysis of downstream environmental and social risks associated with uncertain and controversial technological developments.…”

“…This analysis shows the limitations of existing legal rules and principles for ensuring legal accountability for environmental harms arising from large-scale geoengineering interventions. Thorny issues arise with respect to definitions of damage, the burden and standard of proof, causation, legal standing, and the availability of appropriate remedies (126,143).…”

Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals

“…Numerous scholars of law and other fields have commented on the possible implications. One group believes that precaution can offer some, albeit limited, guidance for managing risks [134,[141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150]. Others assert that it is a poor fit for governing solar geoengineering due to the high-stakes risk-risk trade-off or to a conclusion that here it yields only muddled insights.…”