We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To comply with its human rights obligations, how much does an individual state have to do reduce greenhouse gas emissions within its jurisdiction and by when? And what are the criteria by which a tribunal can objectively assess the adequacy of a state’s efforts to reduce emissions? This chapter proposes five tests, building on the practice of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), for such an assessment. First, has every feasible human rights-consistent step been taken by the state to reduce emissions? Second, is the state subsidizing emissions, disproportionately allocating resources to spending that does not benefit the public, or failing to take adequate steps to mobilize resources towards emissions reduction? Third, is the climate plan reasonably ambitious in comparison to peer states at comparable levels of development? Fourth, has there been a progressive increase in ambition and avoidance of any retrogression? Fifth, are the state’s plans to reduce emissions in line with limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C? A sixth test addresses the “how” question, rather than “how much or how fast”: is the manner in which emissions are being limited consistent with human rights standards?