Do the effects of anthropogenic climate change amount to the ill-treatment of children and young adults? This is what the European Court of Human Rights asked the responding states in one of the most recent climate litigation cases. Some legal scholars give an affirmative answer concerning inhuman and degrading treatment as, in their view, the applicants’ suffering passes the necessary threshold of severity. In the paper, I differentiate between inhuman and degrading treatment, and I argue that inhuman treatment cannot be (...) defined by the severity of suffering, but by the kind of wrong it constitutes. Inhuman treatment is about a substantial diminishment of autonomy through the undermining of planning agency as well as significantly limiting the range of options to choose from by either making the existing types of options unsafe or by taking them away altogether. I show that anthropogenic climate change can indeed have such effects not only on adults but on children too. In the case of children, it is the capacity to develop such an ability that is undermined, as well as the options that they otherwise would have. Taken together, the two amount to closing the future for children and young adults. Those whose interests are set back in this way are subjected to inhuman treatment by virtue of states not complying with their share of mitigation measures as well as not adopting more ambitious policies. (shrink)

Human rights arguments have been successful before several domestic courts across Europe in imposing more ambitious action in cutting greenhouse gas emissions upon governments. Yet, the integration of climate justice concerns in those judicial decisions have been insufficiently studied. This paper seeks to contribute to such endeavor by analyzing the cases of Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Klimaatzaak v. Belgium and Neuebauer v. Germany against the climate justice framework. In Part One we set out our analytical framework. A climate justice approach (...) acknowledges that climate mitigation, like the effects of climate change itself, is distributional in nature. In particular, climate justice highlights the unequal distribution of burdens and benefits across three dimensions: international (justice between states); intergenerational (justice between generations); and intragenerational (justice between social groups along socio-economic, racial and gender determinants). In Part Two, we offer a close reading of three key rights-based mitigation decisions to evaluate how judges have accounted for the various dimensions of climate justice. Detailing the contrasted approaches of climate justice in those decisions, we also point to a common reluctance to engage in intragenerational justice reflected in the failure to fashion rights-based obligations which take into account the inequalities across communities and social groups. (shrink)

Review of Gillian Brock’s Corruption and Global Justice.

The global affluent are contributing to and benefiting from the systemic cause of economic misery and ecological unsustainability. Some philosophers have invoked this relational point to discuss the responsibility of the affluent because by doing so, they assume, one can formulate a more compelling argument than non-relational arguments. This paper supports this relational strand by drawing upon David Miller’s theory of ‘remedial responsibility.’ Although Miller himself seems to deny the said relational point, this paper shall defend it based upon critical (...) economic studies. The first section summarises Miller’s non-relational argument. The second section assesses it, and in the process develops what can be described as a ‘relational remedial theory of global justice.’ The third section discusses a few significant problems that this theory would encounter. Specifically, it argues that the establishment of a ‘cosmopolitan democracy,’ which would facilitate dialogues among global citizens, may serve to overcome those problems. (shrink)

Constitutional environmental rights provisions may be utilised to mitigate climate impacts either directly through climate litigation or indirectly through other types of environmental rights claims. Much of the focus in recent literature has been on climate litigation, so this article focuses on the climate mitigation prospects of the latter (i.e. non-climate cases). Examples from resource extraction, a major contributor to climate change, are used to demonstrate how this occurs through a discrete, case-by-case or project-by-project approach to address environmental harm from (...) activities that contribute to climate change. The extent to which resource-producing nations have constitutionally entrenched environmental rights protection reveals new avenues for addressing climate change that may expand current understandings of the legal strategies that are available to public interest litigants. As this human rights-based approach gains momentum around the world, it has the potential to have a ‘snowball effect’ on a global scale that may complement other climate mitigation strategies. (shrink)

The climate crisis is beset by depoliticization. Couched as an issue that experts must solve through technological or technocratic knowledge, discussion about how to address environmental degradation is not amenable to democratic action or dissensus. This paper argues that approaching climate change through a human rights framework risks reinscribing such depoliticization and that this is politically hazardous. Human rights discourse can impede the demos’ exercise of power, obscure exercises of hegemony, and, via a fixed notion of progress, discourage normative contestation. (...) This discourse’s depoliticizing potential is further attested to by the debate over human rights’ relationship to the depoliticizing ideology of neoliberalism. Moreover, beyond the language of human rights, the larger legal phenomena of judicialization and juridification may further contribute to depoliticization. Depoliticization is risky because it can provoke politicizing backlashes likely to issue, in the case of climate change, in antidemocratically nationalistic and authoritarian responses to the environmental emergency. (shrink)

According to Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, parties to the treaty recognise and commit to address, avert and minimise losses and damages associated with adverse effects of climate change. For many societies, such as Small Island Developing States, loss and damage is a matter of survival. Global warming and sea-level-rise are threatening the territories and livelihoods of vulnerable low-lying island states and thereby undermining many of the fundamental human rights and freedoms of individuals living in these societies. This paper (...) looks at loss and damage through the concept of reparations in the context of the coloniality of climate. By studying the case of the Marshall Islands and its history with nuclear testing, the paper argues for a connection between irreversible loss and damage and the right to remedy and reparation by proposing that the nuclear legacy represents a grave violation of the human rights of the Marshallese and has led to a permanent loss of land and other severe impacts on health, culture and livelihoods, which now are exacerbated by climate change. (shrink)

Book review: James Souter, Asylum as Reparation: Refuge and Responsibility for the Harms of Displacement. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Margaret Kohn has argued that fin-de-siècle French Solidarists such as Alfred Fouillée developed a “third way” between capitalism and socialism which still provides a powerful justification for “welfare state” institutions and public-goods provision. But how does Solidarism respond to the demands for environmental justice, and against environmental racism, which have emerged in the past 50 years, mostly in Women of Color-led social movements. Distinguishing three elements of environmental justice, and also pinpointing the logic of expendability at the core of environmental (...) racism, the current article shows that Solidarism has more resources than liberal egalitarianism to challenge environmental injustice, but that, in the white supremacist state, environmental racism in particular poses an especially difficult challenge. After discussing the Solidarists’ divergent responses to feminism and Social Darwinism, the paper shows that, provided Solidarists are also in solidarity with social movements of the oppressed, their doctrine can aid the struggle for equal status. (shrink)

When it comes to fulfilling our basic duties to distant others, we in the affluent world face a motivation gap; we consistently fall short of bearing even moderate costs for the sake of helping others secure basic minimums to which they are entitled. One response to the motivation gap is to cultivate in affluent populations a greater concern for distant others; cultivating such concern is the goal of ‘sentimental cosmopolitanism’. Two approaches to sentimental cosmopolitanism currently dominate the literature, a compassion-based (...) and a complicity-based approach, respectively. In this paper, I argue for the promise of reciprocity as an alternative motivator of cosmopolitan concern. I further argue that a sense of obligation to distant others, grounded in our participation in an ongoing system of reciprocal exchange, can be cultivated within a thus-far overlooked sphere of cosmopolitan sensitization, namely the market. I make the case for the market as an appropriate site for cosmopolitan sensitization, and further argue that multinational corporations are, for several reasons, well-positioned to bear the political responsibility of sensitizing affluent populations to the significance of their participation in a cooperative economic scheme shared with distant others. This paper, then, makes a novel contribution to debates on cosmopolitan sentiment, as well as to the emerging literature on corporations’ political responsibilities. Keywords: multinational corporations; political responsibility; reciprocity; sentimental cosmopolitanism; trade. (shrink)

This article draws on recent transnational protests against police brutality to advance an understanding of anti-racist solidarity that aims to improve over Mara Marin’s ‘structural solidarity’ view. On Marin’s view, anti-racist solidarity is grounded in the racial structure. But Marin forgets that racial domination exerts a segregative influence on different groups, so that whites and middle-class blacks tend not to frequent the social milieux that would help them develop a sense of solidarity with working-class blacks. To address this problem, the (...) article hypothesises that the conditions for anti-racist solidarity are not inherent in the racial structure but created by social movements, as exemplified by Black Lives Matter: to the extent that white and middle-class black participants in the George Floyd protests experienced the racist police brutality they were denouncing on behalf of the black working class, these protests functioned as non-segregated milieux that could ground the solidarity of the former with the latter at the national and transnational levels. (shrink)

The notion of solidarity can be said to be premised on shared intention and joint action, particularly when oriented towards questions of social and political justice. Yet conceptions of solidary relations remain surprisingly thin on language, and the ethics of the linguistic practices and mechanisms through which individuals formulate a sufficiently meaningful backdrop necessary for shared intention and joint action. My aim in this article, therefore, is to begin filling this gap, in the form of a general normative account that (...) identifies the multilayered interrelations between solidarity and language, and examines their moral and practical implications. I begin with a brief overview of solidarity and language in the context of normative debates on bounded political communities. I then proceed to offer a more critical account of solidarity and linguistic difference, challenging some of the assumptions underlying its present understanding in that literature. In order to highlight and illustrate that critique, I explore its relevance to the highly political and often overlooked question of solidarity and language loss. I conclude with a brief reflection on the field of political theory and philosophy, asking what theoretical, conceptual and methodological insights may be gained from a closer attention to the language of solidarity in the theoretical and practical pursuit of justice. (shrink)

Transgenerational political solidarity disrupts the dominant framing that identifies conflict between generations-the “problem of generations”-as the driver of social change. Political solidarity across generations offers a way of thinking about social justice movements as contributing elements to global social justice efforts through their work in acknowledging the historical rootedness of structural injustice and their commitment to continually reimagine solidarities. Attending to features of transgenerational political solidarity is useful for theorists learning from engaged work on the ground. Transgenerational political solidarity - (...) collective movements for social change connected across past, present, and future - demonstrates the commitment to navigate through disagreement in a forward-looking manner, to find support in and echoes of the cause of past movements for social change, and to foreground the possibilities of future movements by situating collective action in relation to social justice understood in context. (shrink)

Allies of those experiencing injustice or oppression face a dilemma: to be neutral in the face of calls to solidarity risks siding with oppressors, yet to speak or act on behalf of others risks compounding the injustice. We argue that adhering to a normative demand for deference (NDD) to those with lived experience offers would-be allies a way of navigating this dilemma. While theorists of solidarity have generally focused on epistemic benefits of the NDD, we identify a second important and (...) neglected good in bearing witness. However, how the NDD can be adhered to in practice also raises challenges. While the literature focuses on a gold standard model of direct engagement, we defend a valuable role for a second-order form of engagement through reading, films, and similar media. This second-order form of engagement may be particularly salient for global and transnational solidarity, an important element of contemporary global politics. (shrink)