Jobs, justice, climate: conflicting state obligations in the international human rights and climate change regimes.

• Date: 22 December 2010
• Author: Stephenson, Sean

This paper focuses on the large potential for normative conflict between a developed State's obligations under the international climate change regime and the right to work under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The Kyoto Protocol obligates developed States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Copenhagen Accord builds on the Kyoto Protocol and sets the stage for a new large scale emissions reductions agreement. Article six of the ICESCR obligates developed States to respect, to protect and to fulfill the right to work while progressing towards full employment. For developed States to fulfill their present and future climate change obligations, large scale domestic emissions reductions will be necessary. These emission reductions will require green structural change in the economies of developed States; thus, new green jobs will emerge and older jobs will be lost. This change will necessarily have implications on the right to work. If developed States do not take a sufficiently broad approach to implementing their climate change obligations, a large potential for employment insecurity will develop among individuals who are adversely affected by green structural change. This insecurity is the cause of the potential normative conflict and is at the heart of the present analysis. In Canada there has been little detailed economic analysis and no legal scholarship on the effects of green structural change on employment. As Canada implements its emissions reductions, green jobs and employment security will be a topic of public discourse.

Dans cet article, on se penche sur le vaste potentiel de conflits normatifs existant entre les obligations auxquelles les pays developpes sont tenus aux termes du regime international relatif aux changements climatiques et le droit de travailler en vertu du Pacte international relatif aux droits economiques, sociaux et culturels (PIDESC). Le Protocole de Kyoto oblige les Etats developpes a reduire leurs emissions de gaz a effet de serre. L'Accord de Copenhague se fonde sur le Protocole de Kyoto tout en dressant le cadre pour un nouvel accord, ayant une vaste portee et force obligatoire, relatif aux reductions d'emissions de gaz a effet de serre. Aux termes de l'article six du PIDESC, les Etats developpes sont tenus de respecter, de proteger et d'assurer le plein exercice de ce droit au travail tout en visant le plein emploi. Pour que les Etats developpes puissent remplir leurs obligations accrues, aussi bien actuelles que futures, il faudra imperativement proceder a des reductions d'emissions de gaz a effet de serre sur une vaste echelle. Ces reductions d'emissions exigeront un changement structurel de nature ecologique dans les economies des Etats developpes; ainsi, il s'ensuivra l'emergence de nouveaux emplois << verts >> tandis que les emplois traditionnels disparaitront progressivement. Cet etat de choses entrainera d'inevitables repercussions sur le droit au travail. Si les Etats developpes n'adoptent pas une approche suffisamment generale pour mettre en oeuvre leurs obligations relatives au changement climatique, on risque de voir surgir une insecurite d'emploi parmi les individus appeles a subir les consequences negatives de ce changement structurel de nature ecologique. Cette insecurite est la cause de l'eventuel conflit normatif, et elle est au coeur de cette analyse. Au Canada, rares sont les analyses economiques fouillees qui ont ete menees sur cette question, et aucun chercheur en droit n'a encore publie de travaux universitaires au sujet des consequences de ce changement structurel ecologique sur l'emploi. Au fur et a mesure que le Canada reduira ses emissions de gaz, des emplois respectueux de l'environnement et, la securite d'emploi deviendront un sujet de debat public.

Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. STATE OBLIGATIONS AND TWO REGIMES OF PROTECTION A. The Starting Point: The UNFCC B. The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond C. State Obligations and the Right to Work Under the ICESCR D. Respecting, Protecting and Fulfilling the Right to Work III. CLIMATE CHANGE, WORK AND THE LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Normative Conflict Defined B. The UNFCCC, Kyoto, Copenhagen and the Right to Work: Conflicting Norms? IV. THE PROGRESSIVE LEGAL APPROACH AND STATE POLICY: AN INTERFACE FOR CONFLICT A. State Policy and Green Structural Change B. The Progressive Legal Approach and Normative Conflict V. RECONCILIATION A. Short-Term Reconciliation B. Long-Term Reconciliation VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

Throughout the twentieth century, the world witnessed the development of both the international human rights regime and the international climate change regime. The universally accepted international human rights regime was predominantly developed after World War II with the International Bill of Human Rights (1) and was followed by the Vienna Declaration, which stated that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. (2) The international climate change regime, although subject to numerous studies throughout the second half of the twentieth century, did not garner significant legal attention until the 1990s when the first truly global climate change initiative, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (3) (UNFCCC), the precursor to the Kyoto Protocol (4) was adopted. The UNFCCC defined climate change as "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods." (5) This definition is reinforced in the UNFCCCs preamble, which notes that "human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases," and that these increases will "enhance the natural greenhouse effect" resulting in "additional warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere [which] may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind." (6) Since the adoption of the UNFCCC, this general scientific consensus has been reaffirmed by the scientific community, most notably by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (7) The legal component of climate change is therefore captured by law as a human-made problem. Thus, the two regimes have developed separately in time and have generally remained distinct.

Despite the separate development of the international human rights and climate change regimes, their relationship has become increasingly interrelated and complex. Philippe Sands states that the two regimes have "developed in parallel, intersecting institutionally and substantively with increasing frequency." (8) This cross-cutting relationship of environmental protection has been developing for roughly 40 years. From the first principle of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, (9) to the Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, (10) to the 2005 resolution Human Rights and the Environment as Part of Sustainable Development, which "[c]alls upon States to take all necessary measures to protect the legitimate exercise of everyone's human rights when promoting environmental protection and sustainable development ...," (11) the two regimes appear to be mutually reinforcing. Moreover, it is now accepted that a viable or healthy environment is a precursor to the fulfillment of all human rights; put differently, severe environmental harm can violate human rights. (12) This has been recognized in case law in Vice-President Weeramantry's separate opinion in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project decision, (13) the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. (14) It would be a mistake, however, to take this optimism too far.

While human rights bodies have begun interpreting human rights as encompassing a healthy environment, progress has been slow. (15) Moreover, at present, the right to a healthy environment is not a universal human right. (l6) The true nature of the relationship between the two regimes is clearly characterized in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2009 report on the relationship between climate change and human rights. (17) This report concluded that a clear legal tension exists between the two regimes. Climate change is a global threat to human rights in all countries through its direct effects on resources such as food and water, its general effects on health and life, and its indirect effects on response measures. Consequently, without a sufficiently broad approach to the implementation of states' climate change obligations, the necessary evaluative scrutiny on human rights may be neglected. Such a narrow focus can create a large potential for normative conflict between the two regimes.

This paper will focus on the large potential for normative conflict between a developed state's obligations under the international climate change regime--more specifically under the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord--and article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The Kyoto Protocol obligates developed states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The Copenhagen Accord builds upon the Kyoto Protocol, while setting the stage for a new binding agreement for large-scale emissions reductions. Article 6 of the ICESCR obligates developed states to respect, protect and fulfil the right to work while progressing towards full employment. Large-scale domestic emissions reductions will be necessary for developed states to fulfil their present and future climate change obligations. These emissions reductions will require a "green structural change" in the economies of developed states. Thus, new green jobs will emerge and older jobs will be lost. This wdl necessarily have implications on the right to work. If developed...