3.1 Climate change and human rights. Author: Michael Reder. Affiliations:

Transcription

1 Climate change and human rights Author: Michael Reder Affiliations: Institute for Social and Development Studies (IGP) at the Munich School of Philosophy, Kaulbachstr. 31a, Munich, Germany, michael.reder@hfph.mwn.de Abstract Ethical reflections should be closely connected to social practices, so that moral principles are related to social reality. In this respect human rights can provide a coherent and globally acceptable basis for the ethics of climate change. Human rights can be seen as a threshold to provide all people with minimum opportunity to live a decent life. Freedom, equality, solidarity and participation are the main normative dimensions of human rights from which a convincing climate policy could be derived Keywords: equality; freedom; human rights; pragmatism; solidarity and participation Justice as a complex ethical concept Justice and related ethical aspects of climate change have always been important in the agenda of climate politics (Page 2007). The debates about grandfathering and historic responsibility are two examples. Justice serves as the ethical standard through which conflicts of interest in the context of climate change have to be judged, for example to distribute emission allowances (Raymond 2008). However, in the context of climate change, it becomes readily apparent on closer examination that justice is being interpreted in very different ways and can have many meanings. People in developing and newly industrialised countries often consider climate change as a massive injustice since they are not responsible for it but must bear the brunt of it (Edenhofer et al. 2010:67). In their minds, justice in terms of climate protection ought to be the business of industrialised countries that have caused by far the most carbon dioxide emissions during the last two centuries. Intergenerational justice is also an important argument. Many people find it unjust that the interests of future generations are not being taken sufficiently into 1

2 account. Since future human beings should also find a world in which there is a good chance of living well, justice in climate protection is imperative (Gosseries and Meyer 2009; Meyer and Roser 2006). In industrialised countries there is a further understanding of justice that plays an important role in social discourse: in the foreground there is the principle of fairness in personal behaviour. In this context, justice means developing and adopting a sustainable life style for the individual (Roy and Pal 2009). In Germany people often ask whether and how they can personally contribute to climate protection with an ecologically responsible lifestyle. Such concepts follow the ancient ethical theory of virtue, which requires values and virtues to create a flourishing life. However justice is also referred to in arguments against climate protection. Some consider that distributing the burden of climate protection is only fair if the high energy needs of industrial countries, required for their well-being, are taken into account (Vattenfall 2006). From this point of view, justice means as few demands as possible on industrialised countries concerning climate protection. Countries with large reserves of crude oil or coal would like to be compensated since they will be prevented from selling their resources under strict climate protection policies. This short outline demonstrates that justice can be seen in many different ways. Justice can be used to validate completely opposing strategies, sometimes to simply defend vested interests or rights. Therefore the challenge for an ethical debate is to relate justice not only to single aspects but to view it from an overall, comprehensive perspective. According to Amartya Sen, what is needed is an ethical concept anchored in the practical reality of human existence and in concrete experiences of injustice (Sen 2009). The concept of justice should be universal, so that it is comprehensible and generally acceptable to all parties, regardless of whether they live in industrial or developing countries. In the following chapter, a generally acceptable and reasonable concept of justice will be explored. In doing so, the status of the ethical considerations is a normative one. On the basis of the analysis of vulnerability in the previous chapters, normative claims will be explored from an ethical point of view. Philosophy can help to reflect the normative claims, which play an important role in the current debate, and to ask which claims are reasonable and generally acceptable. 62 2

3 Why do we start with human rights? The differences in the various concepts of justice are based on the fact that they represent particular interests. To reflect the ethical impacts of climate change, we should avoid such limitations and ask for an ethical point of view which takes account of the interests of more than one group. Thus, a generally acceptable ethical concept should be developed. Different ethical theories follow this aim. For example, the utilitarian approach develops a consequentialistic argument and the Kantian approach explores a deontic perspective. Both philosophical theories develop a generally acceptable reason for ethical behaviour. One main problem of these approaches is, however, that they provide an abstract moral reason without connecting this reason to social life and structures. Moral values are not only accepted because of an abstract reason but because they are incorporated in social life and heterogeneous cultural practices. This is the main argument for exploring a pragmatic approach (Stout 2004). The idea of pragmatic theory is that norms and politics are always connected to social and cultural beliefs. Theories of pragmatism look at these practices and analyse how people perceive morality from a practical standpoint (Reder 2010). Ethical reflections should be closely connected to these practices, so that moral principles are related to social reality and can therefore claim universal validity. Of course, there are many existing social practices with varying embedded moral values. Therefore, pragmatic theories demand complementary moral beliefs, because humans always achieve practical coherence between different moral beliefs in their everyday life (Nida- Rümelin 1997:183f). Axel Honneth (2008) emphasises that beginning ethical reflection from social practices does not require the acceptance of all practices. In fact, a critical reconstruction has to analyse and discuss the moral potential of such practices and to ask in what way the fundamental ideas of these practices could be improved. Such a general social practice on the global level is represented by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, upon which the global community has already agreed, and which seeks to provide answers to the many-faceted specific experience of injustice. From this standpoint, ethical measures are determined with reference to concrete political realities. In many political discussions about different aspects of globalisation, reference is made to Human Rights (cf. millennium development goals of the United Nations; UNDP 2007). Ethically speaking, they are about letting all people lead a dignified life; human rights protect the necessary foundations for such a life. Also, human rights play a major role in political philosophy. Independent from ethical reasons in meta-ethical perspectives, human rights function as a 3

4 moral standard concerning the different challenges of globalisation (cf. Walzer 2005; Habermas 2010). As the history of the origin of the Declaration Human Rights also shows, discourses about human rights was primarily a response to specific suffering and injustice (Müller 1997:98-120). As a reaction to experiences of injustice, individuals or certain groups have become active in human rights. They aim to protect those who are disadvantaged, discriminated against or excluded from society as human rights apply to all people, not just the citizens of one state. In this respect, they express a cosmopolitan approach which is the theoretical background of human rights: The same rights that apply within the state also apply at the global level. (Caney 2010b:23). However, human rights always need further development because social problems, and the associated injustice, change. The social impacts of climate change are new global challenges, which demand a further development of human rights Therefore, it is pertinent to analyse the effects of climate impacts on human rights; My argument is simply that a human rights perspective has important insights and any account of the impacts of climate change which ignores its implications for people s enjoyment of human rights is fundamentally incomplete and inadequate (Caney 2010a:89). In this respect human rights provide an ethical threshold, which could be a compelling foundation for climate and development politics. Human rights represent moral thresholds below which people should not fall. They designate the most basic moral standards to which persons are entitled (Caney 2010a:71). Human rights can be seen as a threshold to provide all people with minimum opportunity to live a decent life (Wallacher et al. 2009:56ff.). Persons have human rights to a decent standard of health, to economic necessities, and to subsistence (Caney 2010b:44). This means, that satisfaction of human rights is a minimum standard and hence a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for a climate policy to be morally admissible and just. Because climate change affects this minimum standard, the impacts of climate change undermine human rights Inuit, Maldives and Human Rights Council: Human rights and the political discourse Human rights play a major role in the political discourse about climate change today; impacts of climate change are interpreted as violations of human rights. One of the most famous examples is the Inuit case. Inuits live in the arctic region in Canada and Greenland and 4

5 consider that impacts of climate change will destroy their way of life, nutrition and culture. The Inuit have filed a petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights seeking relief from violations of their rights resulting from global warming caused by acts and omissions of the US as one of the most important emitters of greenhouse gases (ICC 2005). Because Inuit culture is inseparable from the condition of their physical surroundings, the widespread environmental upheaval resulting from climate change violates the Inuit s right to practice and enjoy their cultural benefits. The subsistence culture central to Inuit cultural identity has been damaged by climate change, and may cease to exist if action is not taken by the United States in concert with the community of nations (ICC 2005:5). Although the Inuit s petition was rejected, it provides the opportunity to address the question of how climate change affects human rights (Kravchenko 2008:536) at the political level. Even if it cannot be tested in a court of justice today (Osofsky 2007), this petition has a political function addressing violations of human rights which are caused by impacts of climate change. The key message of the Inuit s petition is that climate change threatens the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. The Maldivian people are making a similar case, because sea level rise will have an extreme effect on their natural habitat (Knox 2009: ). As a reaction to the initiative of the Government of Maldives, the UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution in March 2008 in Geneva, in which anthropogenic climate change is interpreted as an abuse of human rights. The resolution was a starting point for a report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the relationship between climate change and human rights (OHCHR 2009:1). Kyung-Wha Kang (2007) stressed during the COP 13 in Bali that the impacts of climate change will affect the compliance of human rights: Marginalised groups, whether in industrialised or developing countries and across all cultures and boundaries, are particularly vulnerable to the dire consequences of climate change. The international community should consider the human rights dimension of climate change as Governments and various stakeholders gather in Bali to mount a global response to this pressing issue (Kyung-Wha Kang 2007: 1). Similarly, Mary Robinson, the former High Commissioner of Human Rights argued: Human rights law is relevant because climate change causes human rights violations. (International Council on Human Rights Policy 2008:2)

6 Human rights violated by impacts of climate change During recent years, a lot of research has been done on the relationship between the impacts of climate change and human rights violations ( e.g. Brown 2008; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2008; International Council on Human Rights Policy 2008; New South Wales Young Lawyers 2008; Oxfam 2008). Comparing these studies, some human rights can be identified which seem to be particularly affected by the impacts of climate change. Right to life, liberty and security of person (UDHR 1948, Art. 1 and 3; ICCPR Art. 5 and 6.1). Oxfam mentions several reasons how these rights could be violated by climate change, due to increasing extreme weather events or sea level rise for example (Oxfam 2008:6). Right of everyone to an adequate standard of living and enough nutrition (ICESCR 1966, Art. 11). Concerning current climate models, agricultural production will decrease in Africa, Middle and South America and some regions of South Asia (Edenhofer et al. 2010). In these regions food security is already an important issue, and is difficult to achieve for their populations. Right to subsistence is closely connected to these rights (UDHR 1948, Art. 25). Impacts of climate change could, for example, severely affect the subsistence of those people living near the coasts. In addition, the supply of water could also be adversely affected (Oxfam 2008:6). Right to health (ICESCR 1966, Art. 12): Climate change poses significant risks to this right if it, for example, leads to a higher infant mortality (as a consequence of malnutrition) or increases the risk of diseases. It will affect the intensity of a wide range of diseases vector-borne, water-borne and respiratory. In the Pacific, changes in temperature and rainfall will make it harder to control dengue fever (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2008:6; Inthorn et al. 2010:143ff.). Finally, some studies mention collective rights which could be violated by climate change, for example the right to development (New South Wales Young Lawyers 2008:11ff.). As recognised by the UNDP, climate change is the defining human development issue of our generation as it threatens to erode human freedoms and limit choice (New South Wales Young Lawyers 2008:12). 6

7 Thus, some human rights are identified which could be violated in the future by the impacts of climate change. The rights of those people who are already most vulnerable in social, economic and political issues will be especially affected. These include those people who live below the poverty line, and in particular women, children and indigenous groups Moral principles of human rights: freedom, equality, solidarity and participation Human rights will be affected by the impacts of climate change; this is an important result of the previous argument. Climate change jeopardises human rights and in particular the human rights to life, health and subsistence (Caney 2010a:72). The political consequences of this are controversial. One essential problem is that violated rights and political duties cannot always be clearly related: Like with most economic, social and cultural rights, the link between the right and the corresponding duty is blurred. Just as a violation of the right to food, health, or shelter, can often not be traced back to the action of a clearly identifiable duty-bearer, also climate effects cannot be attributed to a culprit with name and address. Who exactly should be held responsible for hunger and widespread illness? (Sachs 2008:360). Also the (causal) relationship between climate impacts and human rights abuses is often ambiguous, because it is influenced by several other political, economic or cultural factors. From a political point of view, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess whether climate policies lead to a violation of specific human rights. But this does not mean that human rights cannot provide a political basis for climate and development policy. Simon Caney pointed out that human rights focus on the duties of institutions in order to protect the rights of those people who are affected: Actors should not pursue a course of action which runs a nonnegligible risk of violating the human rights of others when they can pursue alternative courses of action without compromising their or other people s human rights (Caney 2010b:38). Hence, human rights could guide further political strategies facing climate change and global poverty. To understand in detail the perspective they could provide, it is important to ask which universal ethical principles they encompass. Therefore, in the following chapters these general moral principles will be firstly extracted from the catalogue of human rights. Secondly, they will be formulated as principles of justice (see 3.2), in order to test policy options against these principles. In doing so, the ethical argument will be connected to human rights as a global practice and the question will be asked, in what way world politics could be geared to these ethical principles to improve political practice (Caney 2010a). The most 7

8 important normative impacts of human rights which will be reflected are freedom, equality, solidarity and participation Freedom Human rights are based on the assumption that everyone would like to live in freedom and have equivalent opportunities to do so (Brieskorn 1997:131). Hence, a first central ethical aspect of human rights is freedom. The human rights approach emphasises freedom as a fundamental condition for a dignified life. In order to live freely and independently, people must have choices. Therefore freedom is connected to several associated conditions, which have to be secured. These conditions change radically through climate change when people no longer have access to clean drinking water or when the means to feed themselves are threatened. The consequences of climate change are therefore ethically problematic where human dignity is limited or even impossible Equality Equality is closely connected to freedom (Bielefeldt 1998:92f.) and is expressed in article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (UDHR 1948, Art. 1). This means, that human rights are based on the premise of a decent life for all people. The aim of human rights is that all people should be entitled to live a decent life, no matter what their race, colour, sex, language, religion, or nationality. Therefore, each law should be based on this premise of equality according to the reasoning of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948, Art. 7). Human rights demand recognition of each human being as equal. Freedom and equality are interdependent which means ethically, that no person may choose to do or not to do what he or she wants without respect for others. In addition, everyone has to consider the consequences of each action upon other human beings. The effects of climate change are particularly problematic in this respect where the equal entitlement of all to live with dignity is limited or endangered. Freedom and equality as ethical bases of a human rights approach are not to be considered as purely individualistic concepts as is sometimes the case in western culture. Both rights are based on numerous social conditions. For example, freedom can only exist within a community and therefore freedom is always related to and dependent upon community. This is why the several declarations of human rights emphasise social and cultural aspects of being human (ICESCR 1966). 8

9 Solidarity All human beings live together on the same planet. Whether they can conduct their lives in a dignified manner is dependent on the actions of others, ranging from those in their immediate community (family, local community) right up to the state and the global community. The human rights approach identifies that global problems can only be solved if everyone recognise that they are all in the same boat together (Nell-Breuning 1990). Solidarity establishes the recogntion of the interconnectedness of people as the main starting point for political action. The Declaration also encompasses a second element of solidarity. Namely it always refers to an addressee who recognises human rights and understands them as a necessity for his own behaviour. Human rights are not only addressed to national states who have accepted the obligation to protect human rights, but to all people everywhere. To acknowledge this claim, incorporates the willingness to consider just structures and to make them politically possible. Solidarity is therefore an important basis for justice. Solidarity, as an ethical dimension of human rights, requires that the world community to support adaptation measures in areas where people do not have enough financial or technical opportunities to do so (Adger et al. 2006). Although governments have a major role in this process (International Council on Human Rights Policy 2008:12ff.), solidarity as a moral principle is an important guideline for all stakeholders, civil society or economy (Oxfam 2008:21ff.) Participation Human rights require political institutions and proceedings to guarantee implementation, and in case of conflict, enforce them; at the same time human rights should provide orientation to build new institutions facing new social challenges. This is equally true for local, state or international and supranational institutions and also applies to those institutions which are fighting climate change while simultaneously attempting to support development. The concepts of participation and human rights are interdependent and support one another. Many articles express this relationship, for example, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (UDHR 1948, Art 20) or Art. 21 (UDHR 1948): the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. That is to say that human rights require verifiable participation of all those concerned with the institutions needed to solve social problems. From the cosmopolitan approach, which was explored with Simon Caney (Caney 2010b), the normative claim of human rights is not only the participation of people on the local and national level, but also on the global stage especially facing global challenges 9

10 such as poverty and the impacts of climate change. This requires reform of the total international order (system) not just in the field of climate and development politics. Such a reform should be based on the model of transparent participation in order to respond to human rights violations, caused by climate change, in a politically appropriate manner. In particular, excluded or less powerful countries and groups should be strengthened to allow them to negotiate with influential countries on an equivalent basis. Only in this way can their concerns be properly addressed. Countries with populations at greatest risk such as the leastdeveloped countries (LDCs), small-island developing states, and those in sub-saharan Africa must be allowed to participate fully and have an effective voice in international negotiations on mitigation. Organisations representing indigenous people, women, and children, must also be able to participate effectively, nationally and internationally (Oxfam 2008:12). Institutional climate policy, which is based in ethical terms on human rights, focuses primarily on vulnerable groups and will protect their rights facing climate change. Participation and international cooperation are necessary elements of such a human rights based climate policy. The four identified general principles (freedom, equality, solidarity and participation) are the normative foundation of human rights. The history of human rights shows, that there always have been conflicts between these principles relating to various social challenges. They might also yield arguments for opposing policy options. To resolve such conflicts it is important to point out that the idea of a decent life for all humans is the centre of the normative foundation of human rights. In case of conflict, this principle takes priority over the other principles. In order to get a more detailed idea of the way in which such conflicts could be solved, the normative claims of human rights will be incorporated into the discourse about justice in the next chapter (see 3.2). Before this, some remarks about the relationship between the universal claim of human rights and different cultural interpretations should close this chapter Human rights and intercultural transposition There are often considerable differences of opinion in the interpretation and the application of human rights between industrial and developing countries as well as between different cultural groups. In some East Asian countries, for example, traditional values often carry more weight than western liberalism and individualism which for many are almost a synonym for human rights. These people argue, that their (cultural) values have priority in their social and cultural environment, for example, community over the individual, harmony instead of 10

11 conflict, or respect for authority instead of unlimited freedom of opinion. These positions shouldn t simply be interpreted as clichés even if they often are. Such rejection of western values is often based on genuine fear of the collapse of cultural traditions. Human rights should therefore also be considered as an expression of cultural concepts of that which constitutes a good life. They are based on such cultural values and cannot be separated from them. From the point of view of developmental and climate politics it is therefore essential to see human rights in terms of an interchange of cultural and religious plurality of values. Human rights are not simply a product of western philosophy or cultural arrogance; intercultural studies show that there is no fundamental contradiction between human rights and culturally based values because corresponding concepts exist in all cultures (Sen 2005) References Adger, W. N., Paavola, J., Huq, S. & Mace, M. J. (Eds.) (2006). Fairness in adaptation to climate change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bielefeldt, H. (1998). Philosophie der Menschenrechte. Grundlagen eines weltweiten Freiheitsethos. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Brieskorn, N. (1997). Menschenrechte. Eine historisch-philosophische Grundlegung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Brown, D. (2008). The Case for Understanding Inadequate Climate Change Strategies as Human Rights Violations. In L. Westra & K. Bosselmann (Eds.), Reconciling Human Existence with Ecological Integrity (pp ). London: Earthscan. Caney, S. (2010a). Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds. In S. Humphreys (Ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caney, S. (2010b). Human Rights and Global Climate Change. In R. Pierik & W. Werner (Eds.), Cosmopolitanism in Context: Perspectives from International Law and Political Theory (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edenhofer, O., Wallacher, J., Reder, M. & Lotze-Campen, H. (Eds.) (2010). Global aber gerecht: Klimawandel bekämpfen, Entwicklung ermöglichen. München: C. H. Beck. Gosseries, A. & Meyer, L. H. (Eds.) (2009). Intergenerational Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Habermas, J. (2010). On the Concept of Human Dignity and the Realist Utopia of Human Rights. Meta-philosophy, 41, Honneth, A. (2008). Gerechtigkeitstheorie als Gesellschaftsanalyse. Überlegungen im Anschluss an Hegel. In C. Menke & J. Rebentisch (Eds.), Gerechtigkeit und Gesellschaft (pp ). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. 11

12 HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) (Ed.) (2008). Background Paper: Human Rights and Climate Change, from: ICC (Innuit Circumpolar Council) (2005). Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seeking relief from violations resulting from global warming caused by acts and omissions of the United States, from: files/uploads/icc-files/finalpetitionsummary.pdf. ICCPR (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ICESCR (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. ICHRP (Ed.) (2008). Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide. International Council on Human Rights Policy. Versoix, Switzerland. Inthorn, J., Kaelin, L. & Reder. M. (2010). Gesundheit und Gerechtigkeit. Ein interkultureller Vergleich. Wien/New York: Springer Wissenschaftsverlag. Kang, K. (2007). Climate Change and Human Rights. Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. Bali, from: ID=E. Knox, J. H.( 2009). Linking human rights and climate change at the United Nations. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 33(2), Kravchenko, S. (2008). Right to Carbon or Right to Life: Human Rights Approaches to Climate Change. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 9, Meyer, L. H. & Roser, D. (2006). Distributive Justice and Climate Change. The Allocation of Emission Rights. Analyse & Kritik, 28, Müller, J. (1997). Entwicklungspolitik als globale Herausforderung: Methodische und ethische Grundlegung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Nell-Breuning, O.v. (1990). Baugesetze der Gesellschaft. Solidarität und Subsidiarität. Freiburg: Herder. New South Wales Young Lawyers (Eds.) (2008). Human Rights and Climate Change Study. Sydney: Environmental Law Committee and Human Rights Committee. Nida-Rümelin, J. (1997). Praktische Kohärenz. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 51(2), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (2009). Report on the relationship between climate change and human rights. (A/HRC/10/61), from: Osofsky, H. M. (2007). Inuit Petition as a Bridge? Beyond Dialectics of Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples Rights. American Indian Law Review, 31(2), Oxfam (2008). Climate Wrongs and Human Rights. Oxfam Briefing Paper Retrieved June 8, 2010,from: Page, E. A. (2007). Climate change, justice and future generations. Cheltenham: Elgar. 12

13 Raymond, L. (2008). Allocating the global commons: Theory and practice. In S. Vanderheiden (Ed.), Political theory and global climate change (pp. 3 24). Cambridge: MIT Press. Reder, M. (2010). Globale Konflikte und die Heterogenität des Rechts. Rechtsphilosophische Anmerkungen zur kantischen und hegelschen Tradition. Archiv für Sozial- und Rechtsphilosophie, 125, Roy, J. & Pal, S. (2009). Lifestyles and climate change: link awaiting activation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(2), Sachs, W. (2008). Climate change and human rights. Development, 51(3), Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Stout, J. (2004). Democracy and Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. UDHR (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007). Human rights and the millennium development goals: Making the link. Oslo: UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. Vattenfall (2006). Curbing climate change: An outline of a framework leading to a low carbon emitting society. Stockholm: Vattenfall. Wallacher, J., Reder, M. & Kowarsch, M. (2009). Klimawandel, weltweite Armut und Gerechtigkeit. Begründung und Gestaltung einer integrierten Klima- und Entwicklungspolitik. Zeitschrift für Umweltpsychologie, 13(1), Walzer, M. (2005). Human Rights in Global Society. Published Lecture. International Politik Transatlantic Edition,