![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The 2010 UN climate conference in Cancún emphasized that ‘Parties should, in all climate change related actions, fully respect human rights’. However, so far there is no further guidance. This article discusses the relevant legal human rights norms and two case studies from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The first case (Bajo Aguán, Honduras) shows that the current absence of any international safeguards can lead to registration of highly problematic projects. The second case (Olkaria, Kenya) suggests that safeguards, introduced here as a side effect of World Bank involvement, can have a positive impact, but that it is necessary to have them based on human rights. It therefore seems recommendable that the UN climate regime develop mandatory human rights safeguards. In addition or alternatively, individual buyer countries or groups of countries, such as the European Union, could introduce their own additional requirements for CDM projects.
Notes
1 A/HRC/10/61 of 15 January 2009, Art. 65–68.
2 See A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) of 12 August 1992, principle 3 and para. 7.6; A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. II) of 13 August 1992, para. 18.42; A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. III) of 14 August 1992, para. 5; and A/RES/66/288 of 11 September 2012, paras. 9, 58(d), 108, 121, 138, 145, 157, and 229. While these are non-binding, the human rights norms they refer to are laid down in legally binding treaties.
3 Decision 1/CP.16, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 of 15 March 2011, para 8.
4 E/C.12/2002/11 of 20 January 2003, para.1.
5 European Convention, Protocol 1, Art. 1; American Convention, Art. 21; OAS Declaration, Art. 23; African Charter, Art. 14 and Art. 21. The right to property is not included in the two international covenants.
6 E/C.12/1997/4 of May 1997, para. 7; E/1992/23 of 13 December 1991, para. 8.
7 For an overview on landmark cases of regional treaty bodies see Knox (2009), MacKay (2002, 589–606) and Ward (2011, 61–63). For the African context additionally Centre for Minority Rights Development and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v. Kenya, 2009 ACHPR, No. 276/03, 46th Ordinary Session, 11–25 November 2009.
8 OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96 doc. 10 rev. 1 of 24 April 1997, 91, fn34.
9Saramaka People v. Suriname; IACtHR 2007 (Ser. C) No. 172.
10 E/C.12/2002/11 of 20 January 2003, paras. 31–36.
11 E/C.12/2000/4 of 11 August 2000, para. 39.
12 See also the Ruggie Guidelines: A/HRC/17/31 of 21 March 2011, para. 10, commentary.
13 Ibid. para. 2, commentary.
14 Ibid., paras 4–9, 13
15 Ibid, paras 11–12
16 The Marrakesh Accords contain detailed implementation rules for the Kyoto Protocol, particularly regarding emissions accounting and the functioning of (the) flexible mechanisms.
17 Decision 3/CMP.1, FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1 of 30 March 2006.
18 Ibid., para. 40a.
19 Ibid., para. 37b.
20 Ibid., para. 40c.
21 Decision 3/CMP.9, FCCC/KP/CMP/2013/9/Add.1 of 31 January 2014, para. 20.
22 OEA/Ser.L/V/II. of 3 June 2010.
23 A/HRC/13/66 of 3 March 2010; OEA/Ser.L/V/II. of 30 December 2009; OEA/Ser.L/V/II. of 3 June 2010.
24 A/HRC/17/31 of 21 March 2011, para.4, commentary.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jeanette Schade
Dr Jeanette Schade is a researcher in the Faculty of Sociology at the University of Bielefeld. Email: [email protected]
Wolfgang Obergassel
Wolfgang Obergassel is a researcher in the Research Group Energy, Transport and Climate Policy at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Email: [email protected]