The Climate Ruling That Could Reshape Global Power
A new dance between climate change and geopolitics
One of the world’s leading human rights courts has issued an opinion that could transform the way the world battles climate change.
📣 POPULAR INSIGHTS ON THIS TOPIC
At the start of July, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), based in Costa Rica, proposed that a “stable climate” is a “human right.”
This is historic.
The push to reduce emissions and clean up the environment is now in the same boat as the “right to life, liberty, and security” or rights that protect against slavery and servitude, part of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Scorching temperatures or rising tides could soon be viewed through a very different lens, as illegal and prosecutable for violating human rights, putting those who are accused of perpetrating climate change in a highly unexpected position.
A new global precedent may have been set. While the IACHR’s opinion is not an official policy of the court or a country, the correlation between human rights and climate change cannot be walked back. It will become the new basis for the next set of initiatives and solutions to address the growing environmental degradation that is disrupting nations, including freak events, like the recent floods in Texas that claimed the lives of over 130 people.
Climate change, like AI or economics, is not independent of geopolitics. The worlds of global warming and global rivalries have been converging for some time. The push by the EU to become a green superpower, and the rise of China as a global clean energy leader, show how governments are leveraging climate change to build new power.
However, the IACHR’s recommendation adds a different dimension to the dance between geopolitics and climate change.
It opens the door to nations blaming each other for violating human rights as ecological imbalances intensify. And, it sets the ball rolling for countries to begin redefining the borders of climate change, expanding them to new areas to check what another state is doing.
New Tensions
Take the latest push by China to build a $167 billion dam in Tibet, the world’s largest, which jeopardizes India’s access to fresh water.
In December 2024, China approved a new super dam in Tibet, what Beijing refers to as the “Motuo Hydropower Station.” Once operational, it will be the largest dam in the world, a title that China already holds with the infamous “Three Gorges Dam.”
In 2021, Three Gorges produced over 100 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours of electricity). China wants the Motuo dam to produce 300 billion kWh, triple the Three Gorges. Yesterday, America acted big. Today, it is China.
Engineering and energy ambition aside, the new dam has disrupted the brief stability between India and China.
The Motuo dam is being built at the edge of a critical waterway for India, China, and Bangladesh, which India refers to as the Brahmaputra River.
According to some estimates, the Brahmaputra River supplies around 30% of India’s freshwater. And China controls around 50% of the water that enters Brahmaputra.
From the insight 🇮🇳🇨🇳 4 Long-Term Ripple Effects of the India-China Dam Standoff.
India has been concerned about this issue for at least a decade, but concerns escalated after the brief India-Pakistan war in May and New Delhi’s decision to suspend the Indus Water Treaty, which cuts Pakistan’s access to rivers that supply 90% of the country’s groundwater.
Now, China is putting India in the same position that India put Pakistan. While this was already complicated, jumpstarting the “geopolitics of dams,” the IACHR’s idea injects even more instability.
Can India take China to court for jeopardizing the human rights of its people?
If China’s dam cuts the water flow to India, the Indian government could view this as more than an economic security risk. It could view this as a destabilization of India’s environment and climate, threatening the basic well-being of its population. And if India files against China, based on human rights, then Pakistan might file against India.
This puts tremendous pressure on global courts, from the IACHR to the ICJ to the ICC, as well as institutions like the UN, all of which are struggling to ensure the world still complies with their rulings. If the ICC votes in favor of India, will China listen? The correlation between climate change and human rights will be viewed by many as a huge win. But, in an era of immense geopolitical volatility, where nations are going in opposite directions, enforcing a person’s right to a stable climate could be next to impossible. If countries do not comply, then, once again, institutions and courts will be viewed as paralyzed and unable to carry out their basic mission, thereby undermining global governance.
Society & Sovereignty
Then there is the grey area of whether groups of people attempt to sue their own government, another government, or a different generation within the same country.
A version of this has occurred in the US.
In 2015, 21 young adults filed a constitutional case against the US government, alleging that it had violated their human rights by failing to protect the climate, thereby jeopardizing future generations. The case (Juliana vs. the United States) is still making its way through the courts.
More such legal cases may be filed in the coming years, based on the argument that climate inaction or certain projects violate the human right to a stable climate. This could not only create deep social divisions or throw businesses into a tailspin, but, depending on how the court rules, it could also begin to jeopardize economic performance, and therefore, affect the power of nations. If courts rule in a certain way, particularly in the West, and entire industries begin to redesign themselves to protect a new human right, the outcome could be more expensive goods, slower production, and so on.
Lastly, the idea of creating a new human right related to climate change will influence the growing calls worldwide for sovereignty.
If a stable climate is a human right, then what takes place within a nation's borders, or the effects that another government has on a country's internal dynamics, shift into a different gear. Governments may begin to treat certain kinds of foreign investment or foreign interference not just as jeopardizing national security, but also as threatening the new climate-based human right.
The West's pursuit of China’s extensive footprint in their nations could raise questions about whether Chinese businesses and their operations are destabilizing the climate, in turn jeopardizing the human rights of the people. In tandem, the West could put the spotlight on China’s behavior across the globe and prod certain governments to eject China based on human rights violations around climate.
Conclusion
Geopolitics is not just about how nations “hit one another” directly for economic, technological, or territorial gains. It is also about how governments leverage specific “changes” or “shifts” to intensify pressure on their adversaries. The new opinion by the IACHR is an example of this. Moreover, the IACHR’s proposal extends beyond just governments; it also engages individuals and businesses.
The world of climate change is rapidly evolving from projections and fears to real-time events. The climate’s global deterioration is unfolding before the world as a whole. And, like the rapid spread of AI is occurring in tandem with geopolitical volatility, so too, is the growing destabilization of environments.
The measures taken to address climate change will likely draw in the world stage. And, in a growing number of instances, it could be nations competing for power that define the next climate change solutions or friction.
Now, standing before the IACHR, global institutions, world powers, and multinationals, is a grey sky. Can the world transcend its differences and treat climate change as it did viruses or fascism? Or will geopolitics prevail, prompting states to view climate change as a tool of power rather than a global crisis that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later?
-ABISHUR AKA “MR. GEOPOLITICS”
Mr. Geopolitics is the property of Abishur Prakash/The Geopolitical Business, Inc., and is protected under Canadian Copyright Law. This includes, but is not limited to: ideas, perspectives, expressions, concepts, etc. Any use of the insights, including sharing or interpretation, partly or wholly, requires explicit written permission.
Have questions or thoughts? Let’s talk: mrgeopolitics@substack.com.
If you like Mr. Geopolitics, your colleagues might too.
Feel like doing something unique for somebody important?