• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • International Climate Change Lawsuits?

    If the U.S. reverses its 30-year policy and joins the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it will certainly be exposed to climate change lawsuits in the tribunals established by the convention, as detailed in a new Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, “Accession to U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Would Expose the U.S. to Baseless Climate Change Lawsuits.”

    Since major international conferences held in recent years in Denmark, Mexico, and South Africa have failed to produce a legally binding climate change treaty, proponents of the theory of anthropogenic climate change have been seeking alternate avenues of enforcement for years.

    There is little doubt that the U.S. is at the top of the “target list” of environmental lawyers, academics, and activists for an international climate change lawsuit, or that UNCLOS tribunals are among the most favored forums for bringing environmental lawsuits. For instance:

    • In 2003, the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute published “The Legal Option: Suing the United States in International Forums for Global Warming Emissions.” According to the article, the U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol “makes the United States the most logical first country target of a global warming lawsuit in an international forum.” The article proposed various forums for initiating a lawsuit against the U.S., including UNCLOS’s compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms.
    • In 2004, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, and the Pew Environment Group formed the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, which urges UNCLOS member states to initiate “legal action through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) against States that continue to allow deep-sea [bottom] fishing on the high seas in contravention of the provisions of [U.N. General Assembly] resolutions.”
    • In her 2005 book Climate Change Damage and International Law, law professor Roda Verheyen posed a comprehensive hypothetical case that could be brought against the U.S. for its alleged responsibility in melting glaciers and causing glacial outburst floods in the Himalayas. The claim would include compensation for flood damages as well as additional funds to monitor glacial lakes and prevent future floods. Verheyen based liability for such damages on the U.S.’s alleged violation of its commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and its failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
    • In December 2005, the Inuit Circumpolar Council (an international nongovernmental organization representing Inuit peoples in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia) filed a petition against the U.S. at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a human rights body operating within the Organization of American States. The petition requested that the commission direct the U.S. to adopt mandatory measures to limit its emissions and to provide assistance to help the Inuit adapt to the impacts of climate change.
    • In 2006, the International Journal of Sustainable Development Law & Policy published “Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change Damages in International Fora: The Law of the Sea Convention,” which cited UNCLOS’s marine pollution provisions as a basis for a cause of action for rising sea levels and changes in ocean acidity. The author named the U.S. as “the most logical State to bring an action against given its status as the leading producer of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as well as its failure to ratify Kyoto.”

    To date, though, the U.S. has denied such activists their day in international court by withdrawing from compulsory jurisdiction in the International Court of Justice in 1985 and refusing to accede to UNCLOS. Nevertheless, reversing this policy is on the Obama Administration’s to-do list.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to International Climate Change Lawsuits?

    1. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Man-made global warming (now retitled "climate change") is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to promote world wide wealth redistribution through a carbon tax (cap and trade). Yet Obama, and his ilk on the radical left, will not face the facts that almost every study has shown the information used to support their claims has been proven to be not only manipulated, but out and out fraud. Each and every time the evidence in presented, they change the conversation. Of course, this tactic has been continued to be used by the left to not address the issue at hand but to distort and distract in hopes we will just go away.

    2. Russ says:

      Go ahead. Who cares. We are not under the control of "the world". Sue away. Win all the lawsuits you like. It's not like it going to force us to do anything or pay even a penny. Whatever floats your boat.

      • jjkrjw says:

        But Obama and Hillary will comply. They see us as guilty, and believe that we should pay.

    3. Luke says:

      I'd like to see the world try to hold us in contempt of court.

      • Buffoon says:

        Well Luke, I think with the present administration it wouldn't be too far a stretch for Obama to not only open the door to it, but provide a small army of tax payer funded lawyers to help them out.
        Let's not forget with what we are dealing with..

    4. mike gallagher says:

      For the time being, the UN is avoiding any mention of climate change or carbon dioxide emissions.
      The focus for the time being is to mask their intent by using Sustainability as the key.
      The RIO+20 will focus on issues that will provide permanent funding via an IMF scheme.

      It's the same agenda with a different sheep skin.

    5. mike gallagher says:

      Follow Up Comment
      Following the Copenhagen fiasco and Wiki leaks, a spokesman for the UN, Maurice Strong,
      explained that the claims for glaciers melting and sea rising were business decisions and not subject to the rigors of science.

      The US National Academy of Science has reported that there was no increase in temperature for the given time frame.

      So why is it that lawyers don't correct cases like the Supreme Court EPA law suit decision which is not based on science, and not subject to peer review?

      Why are lawyers so willing to twist the truth to their own advantage?

    6. O2BMe says:

      And the lawyers get richer and the people get poorer.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.