The full original posting can be found at:
Alfred de Zayas' Human Rights Corner
International Law Weekend: Panel on Geo-Engineering
Posted Nov. 27, 2014
https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/international-law-weekend-panel-on-geo-engineering-alfred-de-zayas/
(Excerpt)
ILA Panel on Geo-engineering – New York, 24 October 2014
(Contents)
- Alfred de Zayas
- Relevant hard law and soft law
- Positive and Negative potential
- Solar geo-engineering
- Consequences and Outlook
- Solar geo-engineering
I would now like to switch to a fourth dimension – solar
geo-engineering. Would it necessarily be a Brave New World as imagined
by Aldous Huxley in 1932? It should like a magician’s trick to devise
ways how to manipulate the earth’s temperature without altering the
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. “Solar radiation
management” aims at making the earth more reflective and thereby cooling
it – SRM the call it. Another related geo-engineering technique is
“direct air capture” or the removal of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere.
Huge issues of democratic governance arise. In a direct democracy
like Switzerland even banal decisions like building a bridge or a tunnel
are subject not only to polling but also to national or regional
referenda. A fortiori, the decision whether or not to implement SRM
would require consultation with the general public and would have to be
approved by referendum, nor merely by executive or parliamentary
decision, which would be devoid of legitimacy without popular consent.
Would a referendum on SRM result on a positive or negative decision by
the public? This depends, of course, on the level of information
available and the pro-activeness of Government in facilitating a general
understanding of the issues and of the risks involved.
In countries that do not have “direct democracy”, decisions are
frequently taken without proper consultation. If the executive were to
decide on his own, are there any checks and balances? What would the
legislative and the judiciary do? And in modern representative
democracies, would Parliaments pass the necessary legislation, e.g. to
define the allowed level of risk, to require environmental impact
assessments, etc.? Would parliaments pro-actively inform and consult
with their constituents? If Parliaments were to decide such important
policies without informing the people – or even knowingly against the
will of the people – could that be considered at all compatible with the
country’s constitution and with a general consensus on a democratic
order? Surely not – but that does not mean that it would not happen.
European Parliamentarians adopted the Treaty of Lisbon without putting
it to popular vote, precisely because all polls indicated that a
majority of citizens in the UK, France, Belgium, Germany etc. were
against the treaty. And in the only two countries where referenda on
adherence to a draft European Constitution had been conducted – it was
defeated by popular vote. Judging by this example, it is entirely
possible that governments could adopt SRM over the heads of the
electorate – and it would be for the constitutional courts of those
countries to challenge the constitutionality of measures adopted
undemocratically.
Then there is an issue of the international democratic order. What if
only ten powerful states want to impose solar geo-engineering and 183
states are against it? Can a collating of willing States impose their
will on other States? This raises huge issues of interference in the
affairs of sovereign states. Even the UN would be prohibited from such interference, pursuant to article 2(7) of the UN Charter.
To read the complete post go to:
Alfred de Zayas' Human Rights Corner
International Law Weekend: Panel on Geo-Engineering
Posted Nov. 27, 2014
https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/international-law-weekend-panel-on-geo-engineering-alfred-de-zayas/
No comments:
Post a Comment