Changing Climate, Unchanged Mandate: bric Countries in the UN Security Council

Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI:10.1163/18786561-11010003
Tomáš Bruner
{"title":"Changing Climate, Unchanged Mandate: bric Countries in the UN Security Council","authors":"Tomáš Bruner","doi":"10.1163/18786561-11010003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe UN Security Council has turned its attention to the link between climate change and security several times. Its members and other UN member states participating in discussions have remained divided over the Council’s engagement. Among vocal opponents are the bric countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. This article examines the argumentation of these countries during seven UN Security Council meetings between 2007 and 2020. The bric countries often concede that climate change is a threat, but they strongly resist the idea that such a threat could be addressed by the Council. I use a Critical Legal Studies approach to analyse how the bric countries bolstered their key argumentation before the Council. I find that the bric countries exploited a ‘background rule’ concerning the unsc mandate and used it to reaffirm the limits on the Council’s action. They were thus able to avoid self-contradiction and strengthen their political position through a legal argument. This complemented other objections they raised against the Council’s involvement: its insufficient expertise, inefficient tools, and the inapplicability of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to its decision-making.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-11010003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The UN Security Council has turned its attention to the link between climate change and security several times. Its members and other UN member states participating in discussions have remained divided over the Council’s engagement. Among vocal opponents are the bric countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. This article examines the argumentation of these countries during seven UN Security Council meetings between 2007 and 2020. The bric countries often concede that climate change is a threat, but they strongly resist the idea that such a threat could be addressed by the Council. I use a Critical Legal Studies approach to analyse how the bric countries bolstered their key argumentation before the Council. I find that the bric countries exploited a ‘background rule’ concerning the unsc mandate and used it to reaffirm the limits on the Council’s action. They were thus able to avoid self-contradiction and strengthen their political position through a legal argument. This complemented other objections they raised against the Council’s involvement: its insufficient expertise, inefficient tools, and the inapplicability of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to its decision-making.
分享
查看原文
气候变化,使命不变:金砖四国在联合国安理会
联合国安理会多次将注意力转向气候变化与安全之间的联系。安理会成员国和其他参与讨论的联合国成员国在安理会的参与问题上仍然存在分歧。金砖四国的反对者包括巴西、俄罗斯、印度和中国。本文考察了这些国家在2007年至2020年的七次联合国安理会会议上的辩论。金砖四国经常承认气候变化是一种威胁,但他们强烈反对安理会可以解决这种威胁的想法。我使用批判性法律研究的方法来分析金砖四国是如何在安理会支持其关键论点的。我发现金砖四国利用了一条关于联合国安理会授权的“背景规则”,并利用它来重申安理会行动的限制。因此,他们能够避免自相矛盾,并通过法律辩论加强自己的政治地位。这补充了他们对安理会参与提出的其他反对意见:安理会的专门知识不足,工具效率低下,共同但有区别的责任原则不适用于安理会的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信