116
we drink, what food we eat, who can be imprisoned, who can have their life taken
away. Through the rule of law, government leaders determine and regulate good and
bad behavior, what is considered harm and how much is allowable. Therefore, it is
the values of those in power that determine our overall well-being.
The particular—and arguably singular—power of the state is perhaps most
evident by the lack of an adjudication and enforcement body at the global level for
state harm. A governance structure that creates, implements, and enforces state
global responsibility is simply not in place, and so the crises continue, placing
human integrity, environmental integrity, societal integrity, ecological integrity in
jeopardy.
In the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), Chapter 4 argued for the need for equity considerations in climate
change mitigation, yet found that “The fact that there is no universally accepted
global authority to enforce participation is taken by some to mean that sovereignty,
not equity is the prevailing principle,” and that this approach has “perverse results”
(Fleurbaey et al. 2014). The Chapter 4 authors do believe that “governments can
choose to act on moral rather than purely self-interested principles” (Fleurbaey
et al. 2014) But will they?
In most states, the powers of the state derive from their citizens. Philosophically,
this is done through social contract theory; legally this is done through governance
structures (Gwiazdon 2018). When states fail to protect human rights, including
protecting the environment, this is a dereliction of the state’s duty to protect its citizens, and the duty to protect is the most important duty of the state in its social
contract with each citizen (Gwiazdon 2018). The corresponding duty not to harm,
however, is one that extends beyond citizenship, to all humanity.
Within the U.N. framework, states do have a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that
extends outside their borders. This commitment was endorsed by all member states
at the 2005 World Summit. However, it is narrowed to only include genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
1
The original drafters envisioned a wider scope of application, which included, “overwhelming natural or
environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable
to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened”
(International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001). This was
limited in scope by heads of state and governments at the 2005 World Summit limited its scope, arguing that to include “climate change or the response to natural
disasters, would… stretch the concept beyond recognition or operational utility”
(The Secretary General. Report on the Secretary General on Implementing the
Responsibility to Protect 2009).
What is promising is that the principle is based in human rights and global
responsibility, i.e. that with sovereignty comes responsibility to protect all
populations from certain crimes. Sovereignty is not an allowance to harm, and it
1 See generally http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.html
[Accessed 2018-11-10].
K. A. Gwiazdon
we drink, what food we eat, who can be imprisoned, who can have their life taken
away. Through the rule of law, government leaders determine and regulate good and
bad behavior, what is considered harm and how much is allowable. Therefore, it is
the values of those in power that determine our overall well-being.
The particular—and arguably singular—power of the state is perhaps most
evident by the lack of an adjudication and enforcement body at the global level for
state harm. A governance structure that creates, implements, and enforces state
global responsibility is simply not in place, and so the crises continue, placing
human integrity, environmental integrity, societal integrity, ecological integrity in
jeopardy.
In the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), Chapter 4 argued for the need for equity considerations in climate
change mitigation, yet found that “The fact that there is no universally accepted
global authority to enforce participation is taken by some to mean that sovereignty,
not equity is the prevailing principle,” and that this approach has “perverse results”
(Fleurbaey et al. 2014). The Chapter 4 authors do believe that “governments can
choose to act on moral rather than purely self-interested principles” (Fleurbaey
et al. 2014) But will they?
In most states, the powers of the state derive from their citizens. Philosophically,
this is done through social contract theory; legally this is done through governance
structures (Gwiazdon 2018). When states fail to protect human rights, including
protecting the environment, this is a dereliction of the state’s duty to protect its citizens, and the duty to protect is the most important duty of the state in its social
contract with each citizen (Gwiazdon 2018). The corresponding duty not to harm,
however, is one that extends beyond citizenship, to all humanity.
Within the U.N. framework, states do have a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that
extends outside their borders. This commitment was endorsed by all member states
at the 2005 World Summit. However, it is narrowed to only include genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
1
The original drafters envisioned a wider scope of application, which included, “overwhelming natural or
environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable
to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened”
(International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001). This was
limited in scope by heads of state and governments at the 2005 World Summit limited its scope, arguing that to include “climate change or the response to natural
disasters, would… stretch the concept beyond recognition or operational utility”
(The Secretary General. Report on the Secretary General on Implementing the
Responsibility to Protect 2009).
What is promising is that the principle is based in human rights and global
responsibility, i.e. that with sovereignty comes responsibility to protect all
populations from certain crimes. Sovereignty is not an allowance to harm, and it
1 See generally http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.html
[Accessed 2018-11-10].
K. A. Gwiazdon