In a United Nations Security Council session on December 13, a draft resolution proposing to bring climate change into the ambit of the Security Council was tabled for discussion and vote. With Russia exercising its veto power and India voting in the negative, the resolution could not pass. India hit back at developed countries for attempting to sidetrack their responsibility and stressed the need for a democratic approach to climate change. 

The link between climate change and security has been discussed since the beginning of this millennium. Climate change is both seen as a direct source of further conflict as well as an indicator of conflict vulnerability. The World Economic Forum describes global risks to be large of environmental nature as per its global risk report. A report released by the IPCC further heralds the impacts of climate change for developing countries.  

For instance, water scarcity arising from climate change has resulted in increased insurgencies and recruitment in Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group. The Fukushima nuclear disaster provides a glimpse of the vulnerability of infrastructure to climate change. 

Security, climate change linked? 

While the link between climate change and security is clearly worthy of recognition, one needs to analyze the appropriateness of the Security Council as a body to govern the issue. As a report released from the UNSC itself states the direct link between security and climate change has not been conclusively proven. 

The draft resolution sought to empower and engage the Council to handle cases of environmental conflicts purportedly aiming to strengthen the climate change regime.  

The contention persists considering the way in which the Security Council functions. Firstly, an organization that is primarily responsible for peace and security is doubted in its ability in handling climate-related issues, especially when there exists a specialized organization catering to this agenda.  

Secondly, its membership remains limited to a handful of countries elected periodically, while also not ignoring that the fate of resolutions lies at the mercy of the five nations by virtue of their right to veto.  

UNFCCC better suited 

On the other hand, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) involves the assent of all nations' signatory irrespective of their status. Bringing climate within UNSC purview would amount to double-crossing the validity of UNFCCC, undermining existing climate agreements and making the existing indomitable nations herculean. The requirement to characterize the climate change regime from the perspective of sustainable development cannot be satisfied with such a forum as developing countries' needs can only be satisfied with their direct involvement. 

Existing cases of developed countries taking unfair environmental measures that unjustly affect developing countries are widespread. It shows why involving developing nations in policymaking are important. For example, the EU’s recently promulgated Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism proposes to charge the same amount to both developed and developing countries for their carbon emissions, ignoring the context of historical emissions. Going back to the commitment of common but differentiated responsibility is key in formulating a practical, fair and effective international climate change regime. 

This is not to ignore the argument that there is a need for concrete action in countering climate change -- an issue that remains slack given the lack of enforceable and binding agreements. Most climate change agreements are advisory and self-regulatory in nature, which requires but does not oblige compliance from nation-states. Therefore, there is a need to discover alternative equitable solutions for climate change action. 

An alternative suggested by the authors to pre-emptively bring all instances of climate change-led conflict under the UNSC is to instead allow for individual circumstances to be tackled through specific resolutions. If we look at the specific example of North Africa where the water crisis is directly responsible for instances of violence, such a case would call for action from the Security Council under it a pre-existing mandate. 

Go for incentives 

Integrating climate change incentivizing measures with Investment Treaties, including balanced, reciprocal and fair obligations both on the part of the investor and the host state, is another way of allowing for fair and individualized action plans. State control in deciding terms of agreement allows for individual sustainability concerns to be addressed while also putting the hegemony of developed countries out of the question.  

The presence of Most Favoured Nation, fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security clauses would address the concerns of hegemony more effectively than the Security Council. Over 320 International Investment Treaties today have the explicit acknowledgment of the need for environmental regulation. Different ways of approaching dispute resolution in this regard are also being explored. 

The recently concluded Glasgow Climate Pact, which arose out of CoP26 (Conference of Parties), was the first CoP to explicitly discuss loss and damage arising out of climate change. It calls for developed nations and other institutions to fund and assist with activities that aim to resolve and mitigate loss and damage arising out of climate change.  

Instead of allowing for broad powers under the Security Council which also have the abovementioned risks, developed countries should be encouraged to enhance their assistance to be provided. Thus, concretizing climate finance support measures is better suited for the goals that the impugned UNSC resolution is trying to achieve. 

Finally, the UN Human Rights Council recently adopted a resolution recognizing the right to a clean and healthy environment as a human right. With more than 150 nations recognizing this right in national jurisdictions, a recognition of the collective paves the way for further enforcement and effective implementation. It instigates nations to take steps and mitigate climate change, assuring security and peace, guaranteeing their people basic human rights. 

Fair dialogue needed 

Fairness, sustainability, and dialogue need to be the cornerstones of any climate change policy as we need to strive towards rejection of climate change dialogue bogged down by Westernized notions. It is clear that the UNSC cannot promote these qualities but is rather a step back from democratizing the formulation of climate change policy.  

We need to go back to the clear distinction of responsibilities in the UNFCCC and promote the inclusion of all stakeholders. It is hoped that an issue that threatens the basic rights of humankind garners attention in the form of integrated efforts and peaceful negotiations rather than as a self-bestowed duty of developed nations to handle climate risks for developing nations. 

(Nishtha Gupta is a fourth-year BA LL.B (Hons) student at the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. She can be contacted at nishtha.gupta@nalsar.ac.in. Aditya Matolli is a third-year student at NALSAR. The views expressed are personal.)