We need a new, enforceable international climate change agreement — Dr Linda Roland Danil

8 October 2018 by

The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17Today it was announced that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published a special report on the impact of climate change which warns that the world is wildly off track from the target of keeping the rise in global temperature under control.

In this guest article, Dr Linda Roland Danil argues that a new international agreement is needed to prevent us from sleepwalking into serious trouble.


In 2015, 196 Parties came together and agreed to the Paris Agreement, under which they pledged to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But the problem is that the Paris Agreement does not contain quantified, legally-binding obligations for the reduction of emissions. It also has no enforcement mechanism, such as an international tribunal. Instead, countries prepare their own national emissions targets – so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDC’s – and report to each other on how well they are doing to implement their targets.

The Paris Agreement was undoubtedly an achievement in the realm of international climate negotiations, and although the Trump administration has notoriously recently pledged to withdraw from the Agreement, a withdrawal which cannot take effect until late 2020. 196 Parties, at different stages of economic development, and within a conflicting political context, all agreed on the importance of tackling the threat of anthropogenic global warming.

However, the Paris Agreement’s targets are simply not being met, with the national pledges by the signatory Parties having recently been argued to bring about only a third of the reduction of emissions by 2030 that is required.

As has been argued here, if the Paris Agreement targets are to be actually met, governments need to unequivocally act by 2035. After that date, humanity could cross a point of no return and limiting global warming to below 2°C in 2100 would be extremely difficult. To prevent this, the global use of renewable energy would have to increase by 2% each year before then. If humanity wanted to commit to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2100, then renewables would need to increase 5% per year before the year 2027.

The scope of such undertakings would be immense. To put it into perspective – from the late 1990’s to 2017, the percentage of energy from renewables only grew a total of 3.6%. The development of negative emissions technology to reduce carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere could buy us a few years – but as it stands, such technology is in its infancy, and the deadlines above are approaching soon.

What is required is resolute and far-reaching government intervention in energy markets in the next few years, particularly in the largest polluting countries. The decarbonisation of the global economy needs, amongst other things, the immediate setting of a steadily rising price on carbon, the large-scale deployment of renewable energy, and the reform of forestry and agricultural policies that lead to massive sequestration of CO2.

However, as is argued here, the countries of the Paris Agreement did not negotiate decarbonisation per se – they negotiated much more modest steps through INDCs, which have to be updated every five years. Further, INDCs are down to the discretion of individual countries, which decide how, and how much they can contribute to meeting the goal of an overall climate change reduction to below 1.5°C or 2°C, in accordance to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities, which take into account different national circumstances.

Non-compliance mechanisms, insofar as they exist, operate in a non-judicial and consultative manner, reflecting States’ preference to ‘facilitate’ compliance rather than to stigmatize violations or impose sanctions. Thus, although the Paris Agreement is a treaty which is theoretically binding as a matter of international law, it contains few mandatory provisions. This would be the appropriate approach to take if the threats posed by global warming were not so severe and imminent – but that is simply not the case.

In an ideal world, a new agreement taking the form of hard law with binding mitigation targets would be formulated (which, to its credit, the EU advocated for the Paris Agreement), with the same 196 Parties on board. Following the argument made by Bolivia, an International Climate Justice Tribunal, with a mandate to penalize countries for the lack of compliance, would also be established. More broadly, a concerted, global and united effort to move away from the present global economic system, which continues to heavily rely on fossil fuels to drive economic growth in the short to medium term – needs to theorized and implemented immediately. As Raymond Clémençon of the Global Studies Department at the University of California puts it,

there is no attempt to address the inconsistencies between international climate and international trade liberalization objectives which countries continue to pursue side-by-side with no coordination.

The ‘Global North’ – and mainly, the United States and the European Union – which is historically responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions, should take the lead here and ensure that obligations and responsibilities reflect the extent to which the State in question has historically contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, and the level of its economic development.

Through globalization, production has also been offshored to various parts of the globe, meaning that developed countries also have to take into account the manufacturing bases that have been migrated elsewhere and their concomitant greenhouse gas emissions. As William E Rees, Emeritus Professor at the University of British Columbia, argues,

Globalisation and trade have enabled too many countries to overshoot their capacities and run “ecological deficits” with other nations.

A new, enforceable climate change agreement should be put on the table because anthropogenic global warming is one of the most major threats facing the planet today. The five warmest years on record have taken place since 2010. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass, with Greenland having lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016. Antarctica, on the other hand, lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.

Further, we are in the midst of a sixth-mass extinction – a recent article has argued that a ‘biological annihilation’ is occurring on Earth due to, amongst other things, habitat loss, overexploitation of resources, pollution, toxification of the environment such as through pesticides, and in recent times, through climate disruption, as well as through the interaction of these factors – leading to

catastrophic declines in both the number and sizes of populations of both common and rare vertebrate species.

On the trajectory we are on, UN officials have concluded that current INDCs would lead to a 2.7°C rise in temperature by the end of this century. Elsewhere, a recent article has presented an even bleaker picture, and argued that global warming’s worst-case projections of temperatures rising by nearly 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century look increasingly likely. If that were to occur, then this map visualizes what the world could indeed look like, specifically if the world was 4°C warmer. For example, most of Africa will be turned into uninhabitable desert. Bangladesh will be largely abandoned, as well as south India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Polynesia will have vanished beneath the sea.

We already live in a world that is being stripped of biodiversity, sees many of its ecosystems threatened, and in which climate change is leaving palpable effects on the planet. If we continue on the same path, the future only holds further, magnified negative effects. But it is not too late to do something about it.


Dr Linda Roland Danil completed her PhD studies in the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Leeds in 2015. Prior to that, she obtained an LLB Law (Hons) from the University of Bristol (2009) and an MA in Gender Studies (Research) from the University of Leeds (2010). She has since published sole-authored articles in Law and Critique; Law, Culture and the Humanities; and Critical Studies on Security, as well as acted as guest editor for an Interventions special issue for Critical Studies on Security. She presently lives and works in London.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: