Sale Leads

The problem regarding climate change is that precisely this aspect of apportioning responsibility or obligations is difficult to do: the cause of climate harms and the effect of actions and omissions can be described in the aggregate but not regarding specifics (see here). Although attribution science is now able to specify the likelihood of specific causal connections of human behaviour and extreme weather events to a remarkable degree. Nevertheless, partial or non-compliance with duties in this area is most likely the norm, but it is still difficult even to know in the first place. Some political philosophers respond to unfavourable background conditions or partial compliance by changing their methodology: they switch from ideal theory to non-ideal theory (on this and other distinctions between ideal and non-ideal see here).

do the same and start phone number list doing non-ideal theory of human rights law. When concerned with theories of (distributive) justice, non-ideal theory concerns itself with what agents might be required to do when not everyone is complying with their duties. Imagine a scenario where some states diligently work towards reducing emissions causing climate change, while others do not. To provide individual redress, human rights law would sometimes need to obligate diligent states to do more than their fair share. This happens to be exactly what would be required to make human rights obligations useful when it comes to climate change.