Abstract
The term ‘deep uncertainty’ is permeating public discourse in particular with respect to the occurrence of tipping points due to anthropogenic climate change. In pointing at the scientific uncertainty in Earth System Models, states around the world claim wide political discretion in devising their mitigation policy. This claim is further buttressed by the argument that choosing a specific level of greenhouse gas emissions reduction is an inherently normative decision and therefore ‘belongs to the political domain’ for reasons of democratic legitimization. The present study engages in a detailed analysis of this claim and its underlying premises from a political and legal theory perspective. The main argument put forward is that the law does not automatically grant wide political discretion for normative decisions, even in the context of ‘deep uncertainty’. Rather, in the case at hand, the scope for political leeway is tightly circumscribed, inter alia, by the equity principle and the obligation to protect inviolable fundamental rights. Indeed, a strong legal argument can be made that state conduct not aligned with keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5°C at an 83% likelihood not only classifies as an internationally wrongful act but, ultimately, is also deeply undemocratic.
Presenters
Violetta RitzDoctoral Candidate, School of Politics and International Relations & Law School, University of Kent, Kent, United Kingdom
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
Technical, Political, and Social Responses
KEYWORDS
STATES' MITIGATION OBLIGATIONS, UNCERTAINTY, DISCRETION, SEVERITY, IRREVERSIBILITY, SORITES FALLACY
