Search

The article presents the author's views on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is opined that the definitions of climate change under the Paris Agreement's policy and science sphere are inconsistent and apocryphal, which impedes the scientific enterprise of climate research. It is stated that climate science is policy-led instead of climate policy being science-led, as the Paris Agreement seems to require.

The article presents the author's views on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, concluded at COP-21 in December 2015. It is opined that the Paris Agreement would appear to be a procedural framework for future, flexible climate policy- making by the parties, dressed up with some non-binding language that emphasizes ambition and progression.

Following a judgment by a Dutch court that the governmentmust step up the fight against climate change, a prominentinternational lawyer recently proposed that the InternationalCourt of Justice rule on climate science so that the scientificdisputes in this area can be settled. The intent is to pave theway for climate change litigation around the world and toraise the bar for the international negotiations. This proposalraises questions about both the limits of judicial authority andcompetence, and the justiciability of climate science. Courtsshould refrain from examining and ruling on climate science, since they are neither authorised nor competent to rule inscientific disputes. Even if judicial competence is assumed, climate science is not ripe for adjudication. To the contrary, the politicisation of the science and the socio-politicalconstruction of scientific consensus in the climate area renderany attempt to rule impartially on the key scientific disputesfu tile and suspect. Whether in the form of an advisory opinionor otherwise, a court judgment would be perceived as takingsides and, thus, would only aggravate an already badly politicised situation. Courts, including the ICJ, should upholdthe rule of law and respect the limits of their authority. They should therefore refuse to opine on climate science and referscientific disputes back to the scientific community, which iswhere they belong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]