The International Court of Justice (ICJ) met recently to begin hearing its most prominent case in years. It pits two heavyweights, Australia and Japan, against each other.
What sorts of harms arising from changes in the Arctic are actionable, and who should take the actions required to respond to them?
This article sets out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, with a particular emphasis on the role of feasibility considerations. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement will require reforming the current dichotomy between developed and developing countries’ commitments, coupled with a more principled approach to differentiating the level of national mitigation efforts.
This article argues that most well-known approaches to climate justice have two important weaknesses, in that they fail to take advantage of two crucial developments: one, the identification of social and political misrecognition as the key underlying condition of the maldistribution of goods and risks; and two, the influential capabilities approach, which focuses on the specific range of basic needs and capabilities that human beings require to function.
In this article, I identify several conditions for and obstacles to effective international policy leadership with a view toward creating the conditions for that leadership to emerge, and suggest how such an overtly strategic analysis might address some key unexplored territory in climate ethics.
BY IAN HURD. The international regulation of whaling has been a tremendous success. Yet the international organization responsible for this success is in crisis.
In distributing the costs associated with climate change, most scholars have focused exclusively upon mitigation burdens. Few consider the distribution of adaptation costs, which concern projects that seek to minimize harm from human-induced climate change.