A Critical Perspective on the Principle of State Sovereignty Over Natural Resources and its Role in Hindering the Effective Regulation of Climate Change at the International Stage

Abstract

This thesis explores the dual roles of states within the regime of climate change. On the one hand, as actors contributing to climate change and, on the one hand, as the primary lawmakers in this legal regime. Being the primary actors within the regime of climate change means that States, due to the principle of sovereignty and sovereignty over natural resources, have a crucial role in determining the type of response and targets that will be set in order to solve the (super) wicked problem of climate change. This thesis provides a critical perspective, through the lens of Earth System Law, on the extent to which the principle of state sovereignty, and sovereignty over natural resources, hinders the effective regulation of climate change at the international stage. The thesis first explores the current legal standing of the principle of sovereignty, and sovereignty over natural resources, within international law. This was followed by an introduction to the framework of Earth System Law. Next, the development of the current regime of climate change at the international stage and the role states, and the principle of sovereignty, have played within it is explored. Lastly, this thesis discusses the extent to which the application of Earth System Law to the regime of climate change could result in more effective regulations at the international stage. The conclusion is that the current regime of climate change is ineffective, partially due to the principle of sovereignty which hinders the ability to effectively address the climate crisis. The framework of Earth System law provides a possible solution, proposing a shift from a state-centric legal regime to an Earth System-centric one. To begin a shift towards an Earth System-centric model of climate change, Earth System Law outlines five key aspects which must be addressed: (1) recognizing of the need to be more normatively ambitious, (2) polycentric, (3) embracing onto-epistemologies of care, (4) recognizing the complexity of the Anthropocene epoch and (5) adopting a holistic Earth System focus.