There is a growing evidence, that drought, desertification, land degradation and food insecurity are driving conflict and causing political instability.
On the meeting “Understanding and Addressing Climate‑related Security Risks”, the UN Security Council (UNSC) debated the security implications of climage change, that became “one of a web of factors that can lead to conflict”.
Eventhough there is a wide recognition that the climate change and security links are real, multiple, far-reaching, the question wether the UNSC, primary responsible for maintenance of international peace and security and addressing the interstate armed conflicts (Art. 24 UN Charter), is a proper forum for addressing climate-security nexus, has been a subject of a debate since 2007. Some countries advocate for a greater role of the UNSC to play in addressing global security in the context of rapidly changing societal realities (Sweden, Germany) and
call the UNSC upon to deepen the understanding of how climate change interacts with drivers of conflict. In 2015 the US Department of Defense recognized the reality of climate change and the significance of the risks it poses to t
Other countries (Russia, China) refrain from considering climate change as a security issue, but view it as developmental issueand warn against expanding the mandate of the UNSC or encroaching on the jurisdiction of other bodies (UN General Assembly), or overlapping with other mechanisms, f.e. those emboddied in UNFCCC and Paris Climate Accord. In contrast to the General Assembly, the UNSC is not a universal organ and the status of its members is not equal. That means that would be inapropriate for UNSC to tackle climate change, which according to the UNFCCC has to be addressed on the basis of equity and in accordance with the principle of CBDR and respective capabilities.
Despite all these challenges, the UNSC is gradually making a shift towards addressing existing complex interplay between the climate change and security.
Seven yearsago, during the debate held in 2011, delegates underscored the importance of mainstreaming climate change, particularly in respect to early warning asessments and conflict prevention. The UNSC has also issued a presedential statement expressing the concern ” that possible advese effects of climate change, in the long run, may aggravate certain exiting threats to international peace and security”. This implies, that in case when the situation poses a ‘threat to international peace and security’ the UNSC may invoke the binding enforcement authority established by Chapter VII, and recommend or require remedial state action, up to and including the use of armed force. However, invocation of Chapter VII is not limited to addressing international armed conflicts. Over the past decade, massive within-state humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Somalia and Sudan have also led to the invocation of Chapter VII authority. Supporting these recent expanded interpretations of its authority, the UNSC resolutions invoking Chapter VII typically continue to refer to the international security ramifications of the situation in question, in particular cross-border refugee flows and the potential for international conflict. Therefore, characterization of climate change as a ‘threat to international peace and security’ would not be considered inconsistent, given this established UNSC practice. During the past 18 months, the UNSC has recognized the climate-security nexus and the adverse effects of climate change on stability in several geographical areas — the Lake Chad basin region, West Africa, the Sahel and the Horn of Africa (Resolution S/RES/2349 (2017)).
Many experts underscore that the problems underlying the effective engagement of the UNSC in addressing the climate change – security issues are of an operational character. In its current form, the UNSC is rather a reactive body, is not clear what is that the UNSC could do preventively. There is a challenge of the analytical capacity within the UNSC. The climate security implies a different level and a quality of the analysis that is currently not performed by the UNSC. It is very different from what the UNSC has been doing up to now in cases of the humanitarian crisis or armed interstate conflicts. Performing such a profound analysis requires new synergies and cooperation within the entire UN system. Against this background, on the debate held by the UNSC in July, some delegates “called for the appointment of a “Special Representative on Climate and Security” to fill a critical gap in the United Nations system and provide the Council with the information it needs”; other delegates called for creating a focal point for climate security issues and enable the UN system wide response; called for “climate diplomacy” to become a part of the United Nations overall conflict prevention efforts; urged Council members to address climate change as a security risk and called for better climate-related security risk assessments and management strategies, etc.
The UN Climate Summit set to take place in September 2019 to review the Paris Agreement commitments is expected to be an important step in minding the gap between climate and security, institutional governance and coordination within entire UN system. In a speech focusing on the importance of “redefining the current concept of development,” as well as promoting the commitment to the 2030 Agenda, the UN Secretary-General said that climate change is the “biggest systemic threat to humankind”, that require collective measure “to steer the world away from this path that leads to suicide”. Therefore, there is a reason to expect more clarity about the role of the UNSC in climate change governance, climate change related conflicts.
