Determination of State Responsibility for Climate

Harm-Construction of Relief Mechanisms for Affected Parties Based

on Interactions Between Branches of Laws

Xia Sheng

Law School, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

Keywords: International Environment Law, Human Rights Law, World Politics.

Abstract: The Industrial Revolution gave birth to the Anthropocene. As its core issue, trans boundary climate damage,

with its collective and cumulative nature, poses a fundamental challenge to traditional international law. This

paper focuses on the determination of state liability for climate damage. It analyzes the advantages and

disadvantages of traditional state liability for wrongful acts, strict liability for trans boundary damage, and

compensatory liability. Moreover, it proposes to introduce the theories of systematic interpretation and

concurrence of claims, and explores the linkage between climate law, the law of the sea, and human rights

law to construct an umbrella-shaped relief network. Finally, in combination with China's practice in climate

governance, it looks forward to a new paradigm of global climate governance aiming at fair-ness and justice.

1 INTRODUCTION

Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has created

unprecedented productive forces, which have, on the

one hand, fostered the prosperity of material

civilization but, on the other hand, inflicted

irreversible and severe damage to the global

ecosystem. Phenomena such as glacial melting, ocean

acidification, and biodiversity loss mark the arrival of

the Anthropocene，an era where human agency over

the Earth's environment has approached a decisive

role, or what scholars refer to as the approach of

climate tipping points (Lenton, et.al, 2019). Such

changes, particularly through carbon emissions, not

only cause direct harm to countries via climatic

anomalies but also pose a fundamental threat to the

existing international legal order due to the collective

and cumulative nature of climate harm.

In the case of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference

(ICC) v. the United States over its passive climate

change policies, the Inter American Commission on

Human Rights dismissed the petition, ruling that the

Inuit had failed to provide sufficient evidence linking

U.S. emissions to human rights violations. This case

starkly reveals the structural dilemmas within the

traditional international legal framework when

addressing

climate harm, highlighting its inability to

effectively meet the needs of climate governance in

the Anthropocene.

Against this backdrop, clarifying the emission

reduction obligations of carbon emitting states,

determining the subjects of liability, and safeguarding

the right to relief for affected parties are not merely

issues concerning the effectiveness and authority of

the existing international system. They also embody

humanity’s shared vision of achieving substantive

justice in climate governance and the ethical pursuit

of inter-generational justice. Therefore, this paper

seeks to transcend the singular model of traditional

state responsibility, exploring the synergy between

climate law and the law of the sea, as well as between

climate law and human rights law. By breaking the

fragmentation and decentralization among branches

of law, the study aims to develop a systematic and

holistic global governance system and response

framework to address climate risks in the

Anthropocene.

424

Sheng, X.

Determination of State Responsibility for Climate Harm-Construction of Relief Mechanisms for Affected Parties Based on Interactions Between Branches of Laws.

DOI: 10.5220/0014382700004859

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science (ICPLSS 2025), pages 424-429

ISBN: 978-989-758-785-6

2 DILEMMAS IN DETERMINING

STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR

CLIMATE HARM

2.1 Debates on the Nature of State

Responsibility for Climate Harm

2.1.1 Traditional State Liability for

Wrongful Acts

State liability for wrongful acts, which require the

attribution of conduct to the state and a breach of

international obligations, constitutes the traditional

approach to determining liability for climate harm. Its

core logic is Statutory Liability, emphasizing the

directness of illegality judgment and causal

relationship. Some scholars argue that it remains the

foundation and core for identifying liability for trans

boundary climate harm, with strict liability serving

only as an exception (Gong, 2012).

However, the collective and cumulative nature of

climate harm creates structural contradictions with

the traditional imputation system. Traditional liability

requires a Direct and Exclusive Link between specific

emission activities and concrete harm, but the chaotic

nature of the climate system renders this

identification rule ineffective. Although the academic

community has proposed the Theory of General

Causation plus Contribution Share, it suffers from

defects such as unclear criteria for weighing

Historical Contributions and Current Contributions,

as well as value conflicts in illegality judgment (e.g.,

the necessity of greenhouse gas emissions for

survival), making it difficult to gain acceptance in

international practice. Additionally, affected states

often hold a dual identity as both Perpetrators and

Victims. They suffer harm from their own emissions

while also causing harm to other states. Recognizing

their right to compensation could violate the

fundamental principle of fairness.

2.1.2 Strict Liability for Trans Boundary

Harm

Since the 20th century, international law has

developed result-oriented strict liability to address

trans boundary harm in the era of the Risk Society,

with core features including objective imputation,

reverse burden of proof, and hierarchical

compensation mechanisms. Typical practices include

the absolute liability under the Convention on

Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects and

the two-tier compensation system under the

Convention on Supplementary Compensation for

Nuclear Damage. The global diffusiveness and

irreversibility of transboundary climate harm seem to

make strict liability an inevitable choice to uphold

corrective justice.

However, the complexity of the causal chain-from

emission activities and climate change harm to render

proof of causation problematic, while a state’s dual

identity as both a victim and an emitter creates

ambiguity in identifying compensation subjects under

legal frameworks. More importantly, developed

countries account for a high proportion of historical

emissions (e.g., the U.S. has a per capita emission of

14.7 tons), while developing countries’ current per

capita emissions are only 12% of that (e.g., India’s 1.8

tons). If strict liability is applied to determine

compensation liability based on severe outcome

responsibility, it may overlook the development

needs of developing countries, transforming strict

liability into an institutional tool for developed

countries to evade climate debts and engage in

"climate imperialism" through exploitation and

control (Ghosh et al., 2023).

2.1.3 Compensatory Liability

Given the economic inaccessibility and high

complexity of loss and damage (L&D) caused by

climate change, some scholars have proposed

defining climate harm as a compensatory liability

(Surminski,& Lopez, 2015). Rooted in the Common

but Differentiated Responsibilities of the Paris

Agreement and intergenerational equity theory, this

approach emphasizes Collective Governance and

Diversified Relief (financial support, technology

transfer, capacity building). By invoking the

precautionary principle, it weakens the requirement

for direct causation proof, adapting to the non-

quantifiable and long-term nature of climate harm.

However, this framework has significant

deficiencies. Obligations under the Paris Agreement

lack legal enforceability, the 2009 Copenhagen

Conference pledged $100 billion annually in climate

finance, yet this commitment remains unfulfilled.

Furthermore, developed countries may circumvent

substantive emission reduction obligations through

token financial contributions. For example, Germany

and others can avoid meaningful reductions under the

EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

(CBAM) by making symbolic payments. This turns

compensatory liability into a modern Indulgence,

diluting states’ accountability and exacerbating the

North-South imbalance in responsibility allocation.

Determination of State Responsibility for Climate Harm-Construction of Relief Mechanisms for Affected Parties Based on Interactions

Between Branches of Laws

425

2.2 The Imputation Dilemma in

Climate Change Law

International climate change law directly governs

greenhouse gas emission reduction and liability

assumption, encompassing core treaties and soft law

instruments such as the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto

Protocol, Paris Agreement, and Bali Action Plan.

The 1992 UNFCCC first established the principle

of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities,

requiring developed countries to take the lead in

emission reductions and support developing

countries, with the goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas

concentrations to prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate system. However, its

provisions are framework-oriented and of a soft law

nature, failing to specify concrete obligations for

states (Kim et al.,2020).

As a supplement to the UNFCCC, the Kyoto

Protocol hardened soft law by setting binding

emission reduction targets for Annex B countries and

establishing an effective treaty compliance

mechanism. Yet it has significant limitations. Major

emitters like the United States did not accede to the

Protocol, and some developing country parties had no

binding obligations. Additionally, developed

countries’ transfer of high-carbon industries could

trigger Carbon Leakage Risks. Most critically, the

Protocol lacks specific provisions on liability for

harm, making it difficult to pursue accountability

(Kim, et al.,2020).

The Paris Agreement, a landmark accord

addressing global warming, advocates that countries

set their own emission reduction targets based on

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and

Respective Capabilities. However, its

implementation is influenced by international

political and economic dynamics, and core provisions

such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

are Initiatory rather than Mandatory, insufficient to

ensure the agreement’s effectiveness (Kim et al.,

2020).

In sum, the corpus of international climate change

law treaties cannot serve as an effective source of

state obligations for addressing climate harm.

3 CONSTRUCTION OF THE

UMBRELLA-SHAPED RELIEF

NETWORK AS

INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION

3.1 Horizontal Expansion of Relief

Paths-Introduction of Concurrent

Claims

Concurrent claims refer to the coexistence of multiple

claims based on the same purpose of performance,

allowing the parties to choose to exercise one of them.

When one claim is extinguished due to the fulfillment

of its purpose, other claims are also extinguished by

virtue of the same purpose; if a claim is extinguished

for reasons other than purpose fulfillment, the parties

may still exercise other claims (Dudas,2022). At the

international legal level, this principle holds

significant methodological value. On the one hand, it

enables the construction of a multi-dimensional,

intersecting umbrella-shaped international legal relief

system by improving liability theories in areas such

as climate change law, the law of the sea, and human

rights law; on the other hand, when single legal

sources prove insufficient for liability attribution or

evidence, it permits recourse to liability bases in other

related branches of international law, forming

complementary rights relief paths.

In the legal characterization of climate harm

liability, compared to the Carbon Colonialism

controversies triggered by strict liability and the

practical dilemmas of compensatory liability in

building mandatory compliance mechanisms,

categorizing it within the framework of traditional

state liability for wrongful acts is more reasonable.

Despite the inherent flaws of traditional state

responsibility theory, innovative causal attribution

theories (such as adopting elastic standards like

probabilistic causation or market share liability)

combined with an Optimal Claim Selection

Mechanism under the concurrent claims framework-

which comprehensively considers factors such as

evidentiary sufficiency, enforceability, and liability

fairness-can effectively overcome the limitations of

single legal branches. This provides affected parties

with relief path choices that balance practical

effectiveness and substantive fairness. Such a three-

dimensional liability determination model propels the

interactive exploration between climate law and other

branches of law.

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

426

3.2 Vertical Expansion of Relief

Paths-Exploration of Inter-Branch

Legal Interactions

3.2.1 Climate Law and the Law of the

Sea-Application and Limits of

Systemic Interpretation

Climate change law faces dual limitations in

regulating carbon emissions. In terms of subject

scope, principles such as Common but Differentiated

Responsibilities struggle to effectively attribute

liability to major emitters; in terms of legal effect, it

lacks mandatory compliance mechanisms and

authoritative dispute settlement bodies. Therefore,

turning to the more widely participated international

law of the sea to explore synergies with climate law

becomes a viable approach.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the

Sea (UNCLOS) provides a normative foundation for

this cross - branch legal connection. Although the

Convention does not directly include climate change

provisions, its regulatory logic shares inherent links

with climate harm. First, it governs substances or

energy that pollute the ocean through the atmosphere,

and carbon dioxide emissions, which cause negative

impacts such as ocean acidification and warming

through the atmosphere, fall within its regulatory

scope. Second, 13 articles of the Convention mention

concepts like Atmosphere and Airspace, indicating its

reserved adjustment for atmospheric space. Third,

Part XII of the Convention establishes broad

obligations for states to protect the marine

environment, requiring them to address climate

change threats to the ocean, giving it the attribute of

an Umbrella Agreement (De Herdt et al., 2020).

Based on these characteristics, integrating marine and

climate governance through systemic interpretation is

feasible-normative links can be established between

climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement and

UNCLOS, and the Convention’s compulsory dispute

settlement procedures (e.g., jurisdiction of the

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) can be

used to build transboundary harm coordination

mechanisms.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

clarified key points on the application of systemic

interpretation in the Climate Change Advisory Case.

On the one hand, it affirmed that UNCLOS can

provide a compulsory settlement mechanism for

climate change disputes, supporting the use of the law

of the sea to strengthen relief for affected parties; on

the other hand, it explicitly opposed directly applying

the Paris Agreement’s emission obligations to

interpret the Convention, emphasizing that the Paris

Agreement is not a Special law of UNCLOS and that

its 1.5°C temperature control target is insufficiently

strict in the Convention’s context (Article 49 of the

Convention’s requirement for Necessary Measures

cannot be fulfilled solely by complying with the Paris

Agreement). The Tribunal proposed incorporating

marine issues into Nationally Determined

Contributions, using the Paris Agreement to

supplement UNCLOS and expand their dialogue

space (Klerk, 2024). This demonstrates the Tribunal’s

emphasis on the boundaries of systemic

interpretation: textual interpretation must be the

primary method, and Legal Creation beyond treaty

text is prohibited. Such a Creative Introduction

essentially expands the material jurisdiction of

judicial bodies, potentially impacting the

fundamental powers of sovereign states. Against the

backdrop of evolving scientific understanding and

international consensus, international judicial

institutions must adhere to the principle of judicial

restraint, advancing interpretation while respecting

treaty text to ensure they do not overstep the boundary

of sovereign states’ collective law -making authority

and promoting institutional interaction between the

law of the sea and climate law within the reasonable

scope of judicial interpretation.

3.2.2 Climate Law and Human Rights

Law-Practical Paths and Humanistic

Elevation

In the context of global climate issues such as Climate

Refugees significantly impacting human rights, the

necessity of integrating human rights law into climate

change governance has become increasingly

prominent. Human rights law not only provides value

orientation for climate policies through fundamental

rights such as the right to life and health but also

strengthens government accountability mechanisms

through its established state responsibility

framework, serving as a critical bridge for interaction

between climate law and international law

(Carlarne,2020).

The international community has proposed three

paths for incorporating human rights law into climate

change.

The first is greening existing human rights. This

approach seeks to indirectly hold climate tort

(climate-related violations) accountable by linking

environmental harm to pre-existing rights (e.g., the

right to life, health). However, the interpretive space

for environmental protection within the existing

human rights system is limited, and climate harm

Determination of State Responsibility for Climate Harm-Construction of Relief Mechanisms for Affected Parties Based on Interactions

Between Branches of Laws

427

alone rarely constitutes an independent cause of

action, leading to insufficient adaptability in legal

practice.

The second is developing environmental

procedural rights. Represented by the Aarhus

Convention, this path grants the public procedural

rights such as access to environmental information,

participation in decision-making, and judicial redress.

Yet it may challenge state sovereignty boundaries,

and procedural rights alone, without substantive

obligations, struggle to meaningfully impact climate

governance (Tian, 2023).

The last is creating a new right-the right to a

healthy environment. In 2021, the UN Human Rights

Council established the right to a safe, clean, healthy,

and sustainable environment as a fundamental human

right, requiring states to assume preventive

obligations at individual and collective levels and

engage in international cooperation. This approach

offers multiple advantages. First, it directly links

emission activities to violations of the right to a

healthy environment, replacing the complex indirect

causation proof in traditional human rights litigation,

thus simplifying causal attribution and reducing the

burden of proof. Second, it defines Extraterritorial

Human Rights Obligations based on states’

contributions to the global environment, transcending

the traditional Effective Control standard and

expanding the scope of liable entities. Third, it

strengthens ex ante preventive obligations, breaking

free from the singular ex post relief model of Relief

Only After Harm Occurs (Cima, 2022). Despite

challenges such as state sovereignty disputes and the

absence of liability quantification mechanisms, its

institutionalization through the UN framework holds

promise as a core basis for claims in climate

litigation.

Beyond these practical functions, the profound

value of human rights law lies in infusing humanistic

care into the rigid multilateral climate regime.

Elevating climate issues to the level of human rights

significantly enhances their moral urgency and legal

enforceability, effectively countering state egoism.

For example, judgments by the European Court of

Human Rights on climate-affected communities have

compelled 50 national governments to address the

needs of nearly 700 million people, directly elevating

the priority of climate issues in legal and policy

agendas. This human rights-based narrative not only

provides a practical path for institutional construction

but also fundamentally reshapes the value core of

climate governance, shifting from a mere

environmental-technical issue to the defense of

fundamental human rights, injecting lasting

momentum into global climate cooperation.

4 CHINA'S APPROACH TO

LAWMAKING UNDER THE

HUMAN COMMUNITY WITH A

SHARED FUTURE

Against the intertwined backdrop of the

Anthropocene and multi-polarization, China, guided

by the concept of the Human Community with a

Shared Future, is defending multilateralism through

lawmaking practices, actively promoting dialogue

and consultation, and seeking to reshape the

international legal paradigm dominated by the West’s

Zero-Sum Game mindset, thereby proposing a unique

Chinese scheme for global climate governance.

China attaches great importance to the role of

scientific achievements and science diplomacy in

international lawmaking. Relying on its HY-2

satellite network, China has led the development of

the International Standards for Marine Impacts of

Climate Change (ISO 31000-CM series),

demonstrating efficient interaction between scientists

and policymakers to facilitate evidence-based priority

setting in decision-making and continuously improve

governance frameworks. Additionally, China actively

participates in the codification work of the

International Law Commission. For example, during

the deliberation of the Draft Articles on the Protection

of the Environment in Relation to Emergency

Situations, China proposed including climate

disasters in the criteria for defining emergency

situations, winning joint support from 37 developing

countries. These initiatives have significantly

accelerated the advancement of international

customary rules and climate governance norms.

Such practices highlight China’s pioneering

efforts to foster the formation and development of

new customs and rules in international law, aiming to

gain an edge in the competition for marine rule-

making power and ocean order leadership while

securing more marine rights, interests, and

institutional benefits for the nation (Chen, 2022). As

a responsible civilizational power, China goes beyond

focusing on its own interests, dedicating itself to

building a fair and inclusive global climate

governance system. By establishing the South China

Sea Marine Ecological Compensation Fund, China

extends the Loss and Damage Fund mechanism under

the Paris Agreement to the marine realm, providing

financial support to small island states affected by

ICPLSS 2025 - International Conference on Politics, Law, and Social Science

428

rising sea levels. This international lawmaking

practice, rooted in multilateralism and oriented

toward fairness and justice, not only supplies

institutional public goods for global climate

governance but also contributes unique Eastern

wisdom to constructing the Human Community with

a Shared Future.

5 CONCLUSION

This paper employs systematic analysis and case

study methods to elaborate on the structural dilemmas

of state responsibility for climate harm within the

traditional international legal framework and

attempts to construct an umbrella-shaped relief

mechanism at the institutional level. Horizontally, it

introduces the concept of concurrent claims,

establishing an Optimal Claim Selection Mechanism

to overcome the limitations of relying on single legal

branches for liability bases. Vertically, it activates the

synergy potential with the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

connecting climate law and the law of the sea through

systemic interpretation, while leveraging the

emerging right to a healthy environment to simplify

causal proof, expanding extraterritorial liability, and

strengthen ex ante prevention. Additionally, the paper

closely examines China’s lawmaking practices,

where a new climate governance system centered on

multilateralism not only injects new momentum into

the supply of global public goods but also provides a

practical model for the concept of the Human

Community with a Shared Future.

Looking ahead, theoretical innovation can be

deepened in key areas such as refining the legal

connotations of the right to a healthy environment,

balancing sovereignty and public interest, and

guarding against the risks of carbon colonialism.

Meanwhile, exploring interactions between climate

law and more branches of international law will help

inject a strong impetus for substantive and

intergenerational justice into climate governance.

REFERENCES

Carlarne, C. 2020. Climate change, human rights, and the

rule of law. UCLA Journal of International Law and

Foreign Affairs 25: 11.

Chen, Y. 2022. Challenges of international law and national

practice of sea level rise: From the perspective of

international law-making. Asia-Pacific Security and

Ocean Research (2): 50-67+5.

Cima, E. 2022. The right to a healthy environment:

Reconceptualizing human rights in the face of climate

change. Review of European, Comparative and

International Environmental Law 31(1): 38–49.

De Herdt, S.W. & Ndiaye, T.M. 2020. The International

Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the protection and

preservation of the marine environment: Taking stock

and prospects. Canadian Yearbook of International Law

57: 353-385.

Dudas, A.I. 2022. Concurrent Claims in Contract and Tort

in Serbian Law: With Reference to the New Hungarian

Civil Code from 2013 and the Project of the Reform of

the French Civil Code regarding Liability for Damage

from 2017. Zbornik Radova 56: 795.

Ghosh, J. et al. 2023. Climate imperialism in the twenty-

first century. El Trimestre Económico 90(357): 267-

291.

Gong, Y. 2012. State Responsibility for Climate Change

Damage: Illusion or Reality. Modern Law (4): 151-162.

Kim, Y. et al. 2020. Environmental and economic

effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol. PLOS ONE 15(7):

e0236299.

Klerk, B.E. 2024. The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate

change: Revisiting the relationship between the United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Paris

Agreement. Review of European, Comparative &

International Environmental Law.

Lenton, T.M. et al. 2019. Climate tipping points—too risky

to bet against. Nature 575(7784): 592-595.

Surminski, S. & Lopez, A. 2015. Concept of loss and

damage of climate change: A new challenge for climate

decision-making? A climate science perspective.

Climate and Development 7(3): 267-277.

Tian, J. 2023. Relief of Climate Change Damage in the

Context of Human Rights Law: Challenges and

Approaches. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology

(Social Science Edition) (6): 46-55.

Determination of State Responsibility for Climate Harm-Construction of Relief Mechanisms for Affected Parties Based on Interactions

Between Branches of Laws

429