Global Development: Views from the Center

At a conference on corporate citizenship hosted in South Africa by the UNISA Centre for Corporate Citizenship i presented a paper arguing against the voluntary regulation of business on sustainable development and for formal regulation enforced by the state. This minority position was based in part on supply chain research that clearly demonstrated compliance is negligible where formal regulatory mechanisms, monitoring and sanction are absent. I am fairly convinced that the finding can be elevated to a behavioural law. The possibility of legal recourse against polluting nations is welcome, not for retributive reasons, but because winning the battle against environmental destruction depends on formal sanction - unfortunately. To quote a prominent South African attorney - "Nothing focusses the mind like legal papers on your desk."

The foundation for the first climate change litigation is already being laid. Earlier this month, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Sheila Watt-Cloutier testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding the effects of climate change on indigenous people, especially the Inuit. Receding Arctic sea ice and thawing permafrost are destroying traditional sources of subsistence and exposing communities to increased storms and flooding. The Alaskan town of Shishmaref (perhaps the future test case) is literally falling into the sea; shorelines no longer protected by a shield of ice are suffering from rapid erosion, sometimes losing as much as 125 feet in a single night. As Watt-Cloutier put it, “These impacts are destroying our rights to life, health, property and means of subsistence. States that do not recognize these impacts and take action violate our human rights.”

My reading of the Commission’s mandate and the nature of Watt-Cloutier’s petition is that referral to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is unlikely, and the U.S. government would not recognize a subsequent ruling as binding in any event. But a favorable reading by the Commission would begin building a body of statements and opinions regarding climate change and human rights. Of course, the issues here are more complex than in the case of, say, tobacco producers. Given that carbon dioxide has an atmospheric life of 100 years, to what extent are current carbon emitters responsible for damages occurring today? At what point in time are subsequent emissions termed cases of negligence rather than ignorance? Can (will?) the legal system really address what amounts to the mother of all collective action problems, or will only a political solution suffice?

I think the first two questions can be answered on the basis of common sense and science. As for the last one, if some of this action serves to scare the lawyers of major corporations and governments, then it is entirely worthwhile. Maybe that will increase the pressure for real mitigation efforts (to head-off future liability) and lead to an acknowledgement that adaptation costs should be borne by the perpetrators, not the victims.

Truely, there has been greater climate-change induced-conflicts than just in Darfur. The continous tribal fightings in parts of Northern Kenya,the growth of warlords in Somalia have been in one way or another related to control of grazing lands and water points. Egypt itself has warned that regulation of the Nile water by Uganda especially may result into 'a war' and climatic experts have also warned that the 21st century conflicts will be over water, arable land and fishing grounds than just political adnimistration.

David Wheeler begins this article by a very critical point-criminal matters and the prove of beyond reasonable doubt'. This word alone is key to any criminal liability arising out of human made climate change. Up to now, some American politicians and Russian scientists do no believe that there is Global warming resulting from industrial activities. It will be pretty difficult for a claimant-country or person to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' that their condition is a result of the global warming,ozone layer depletion or biodiversity abuse. How can one prove that the Tsunami, Hurican Katrina is a result of the human or country induced environmental abuse?. If the idea of human induced climate change itself has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, how will the supposed effects be?. Before it gets to this point, international institutionsl players in development such as the world bank, IMF, Donor countries should not support country programes that lead to negative climatic change and affect people. Why would a global institution for instance fund the use of DDT with all its associated environmental challenges that will lead drastic climatic change consequencies?. Why would the governments and donors support projects and investments like in the Niger Delta area?. This is the starting point, mass mobilisation against such institutions, agencies and Governments.

In Sudan we were always beyond any doubt that the Darfur conflict background is basically environmental. Sudanese in Darfur and Kordufan have lived for centuries in their land experiencing only minor clashes because of (local routes) 'msarat' in search for rain, water and agricultural lands. Ethnicity was erroneously phrased lately instead of ' indigenous distinctive settelers'. Valid or invalid explanation, starting an in depth warming investigation - in it self- will lead to a psychological releif for us Sudanese in our negotiations for a total peaceful Darfur settelment.

With the globe experiensing it's worst climatic conditions and no effective mechanism have been put in place to tackle the issue your article on climate litigation hsa reealy impresed me as a student doing aresearch on climate change i consider it to be amjor step in combating climate change. keep up the good job