countries often lack not only the resources and institutions, but also, all too often, the political will to protect and support all their people. Rawls (1999, 5) distinguishes between “outlaw states” and societies,” the former that refuse to comply with a reasonable “burdened “regimes Law of Peoples” (e.g., Myanmar, North Korea), the latter societies historical, social and “whose economic circumstances” make it difficult if not impossible for them to achieve a well-ordered regime (e.g., Afghanistan, Somalia). With rich countries imposing bad weather on outlaw states and burdened societies, agents in the original position would find governments of countries with greater responsibility and capacity to be obligated to protect and support the likely and actual victims. Behind the veil of ignorance the imperative is clear: to prevent loss of life, protect and restore livelihoods, and build toward just institutions. There is a particular obligation to climate refugees forced to – leave their native homes due first to the failure to mitigate climate change, and then to the failure to protect or restore their livelihoods. The obligation is to vulnerable and victimized individuals, not to their governments, which may be corrupt and authoritarian, favoring some ethnic groups or sections of society. It clearly conflicts with national sovereignty. But the obligation is also to support movement toward just institutions. is a certain fluidity in the content of obligations to mitigate climate change, to help with adaptation, to support victims, and to mediate conflicts. Faster mitigation yields less need for
countries often lack not only the resources and institutions, but also, all too often, the political will to protect and support all their people. Rawls (1999, 5) distinguishes between “outlaw states” and “burdened societies,” the former “regimes that refuse to comply with a reasonable Law of Peoples” (e.g., Myanmar, North Korea), the latter societies “whose historical, social and economic circumstances” make it difficult if not impossible for them to achieve a well-ordered regime (e.g., Afghanistan, Somalia). With rich countries imposing bad weather on outlaw states and burdened societies, agents in the original position would find governments of countries with greater responsibility and capacity to be obligated to protect and support the likely and actual victims. Behind the veil of ignorance the imperative is clear: to prevent loss of life, protect and restore livelihoods, and build toward just institutions. There is a particular obligation to climate refugees – forced to leave their native homes due first to the failure to mitigate climate change, and then to the failure to protect or restore their livelihoods. The obligation is to vulnerable and victimized individuals, not to their governments, which may be corrupt and authoritarian, favoring some ethnic groups or sections of society. It clearly conflicts with national sovereignty. But the obligation is also to support movement toward just institutions. is a certain fluidity in the content of obligations to mitigate climate change, to help with adaptation, to support victims, and to mediate conflicts. Faster mitigation yields less need for
clements.docx