국제법상 기후변화피해책임

International Responsibilities on the Loss & Damage from the Climate Change

The issue of the ‘Loss & Damage’, which means injuries and harms from sudden and slow-onset events of climate change, has been one of the most debated topics in climate change talks. The core of the debates would be the international responsibility for the ‘Loss & Damage’ from the climate change actions. Small island developing states and least developed countries which are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change have insisted on the more financial contribution of the developed countries who are the main greenhouse gases emitting countries for the ‘Loss & Damage’. And they pushed strongly for the Paris Agreement to recognize the ‘Loss & Damage’ as a separate pillar of climate action in addition to the ‘Mitigation’ and the ‘Adaptation’. In turn, developed countries were reluctant to include any reference to the ‘Loss & Damage’ in the Paris Agreement, arguing the discussion should be put on hold until 2016, when the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for the ‘Loss & Damage’ would be due. Finally, Paris Agreement of 2016 has an independent provision (article 8) regarding the ‘Loss & Damage’. However, Decision 1/CP21 clarifies that the inclusion of the ‘Loss & Damage’ in the Paris Agreement does not provide any basis for liability. It seems to be amicable compromise but remained controversial in the further negotiation in the financial arrangement in adaptation capacity building for the developing countries. In terms of the state responsibility, it is necessary to review the ‘Loss & Damage’ from the climate change. This paper explores what was agreed in Paris Agreement in light of the history of negotiations on the ‘Loss & Damage’ under the UNFCCC and considers what the Paris Agreement means for action on ‘Loss & Damage’ going forward. And it examines the what responsibility should be addressed for the ‘Loss & Damage’ based on the ILC works such as 2001 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, and 2006 Draft principles on the Allocation of Loss in the case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities. Finally, this paper concludes that the approach of the Paris agreement to handle the responsibility is on the right track