Sale Database

It involves expanding human rights obligations and weakening causal links of responsibility. Non-ideal theory might provide a route to accommodate these changes without abandoning principles. In particular, whenever non-ideal theory asks an agent to do more than their fair share, the overarching principle is to require them to do what is reasonably within their power to do. Reasonableness constraints already feature in human rights law when it comes to climate cases (see eg, here at paras 94, 120, 194), but it are not usually assessed in a principled manner. Shifting our inquiry from using reasonableness to shape obligations in general to relying on it to respond to unfavourable conditions and partial compliance would allow principles to play a greater role again. Given that justification is in part important because of the legitimacy and integrity of the human rights system, this would be preferable.

Overall, the fraught relationship between extraterritoriality phone number list and climate change suggests two important conclusions. First, if the integrity of human rights protection is important, then so is justifying obligations. Second, we should not abandon justification in the face of urgency but to look for principled alternatives, changing, if warranted the parameters of what needs to be justified.