An initial scoping of transitional justice for global climate governance

ABSTRACT

Geopolitical changes combined with the increasing urgency of ambitious climate action have re-opened debates about justice and international climate policy. Tensions about historical responsibility have been particularly difficult and could intensify with increased climate impacts and as developing countries face mounting pressure to take mitigation action. Climate change is not the only time humans have faced historically rooted, collective action challenges involving justice disputes. Practices and tools from transitional justice have been used in over 30 countries across a range of conflicts at the interface of historical responsibility and imperatives for collective futures. Central to this body of theory and experience is the need to reflect both backwards- and forwards-oriented elements in efforts to build social solidarity. Lessons from transitional justice theory and practice have not been systematically explored in the climate context. This article conceptually examines the potential of transitional justice practices to inform global climate governance by looking at the structural similarities and differences between the global climate regime and traditional transitional justice contexts. It then identifies a suite of common transitional justice practices and assesses their potential applicability in the climate context.

POLICY RELEVANCE

• Justice disputes, including about historical responsibility and future climate actions, are long-standing in the climate context and could intensify with increased climate impacts and broadened mitigation pressures.

• Lessons from efforts to use transitional justice mechanisms could provide insight into strategies for balancing recognition of harms rooted in the past, while creating stronger future-oriented collective action.

• Several areas of transitional justice practice including: the combination of amnesties and litigation, truth commissions, reparations and institutional change could provide useful insights for the climate context.

KEYWORDS:

• Climate regime
• governance
• historical responsibility
• justice
• negotiations

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Henry Derwent, Jasmina Brankovic, Andrzej Blachowicz, and the Climate Strategies Secretariat in addition to the many participants in the events we held to explore this concept. All mistakes and inconsistencies remain the responsibility of the author.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Article 14 of the Paris Agreement establishes a global review (stock-take) of progress across mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation to be conducted in 2023 and then every 5 years afterwards.

2 The Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere called for the development of some form of international legal framework to address climate change, laid out some initial targets, and suggested the development of a world fund from a levy fossil fuels to help fund these efforts (Toronto Declaration, 1988).

Additional information

Funding

Financial support for this project was generously provided by the KR Foundation [grant number #G-1503-01711], titled ‘Evaluating peace and reconciliation to address historical responsibility within international climate negotiations’.