Climate Change: a Threat to International Peace and Security

Author: Sebastián Correa Cruz

Introduction

The United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945 with the central purpose of preventing another world war. The primary UN organ concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security is the Security Council (UNSC). While formally equal to the other five principal organs, it has evolved into the UN’s most powerful forum. Unlike the General Assembly (GA), with which it has had a sometimes tense relationship, the UNSC decisions are not  only binding on all member states, but it also has the power to enforce them through sanctions or military means (Von Einsiedel S. and Malone, p.1).

Since 2000 one remarkable trend in the UNSC since the turn of the millennium is its increasing attention to transnational threats—particularly terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), transnational organized crime, and pandemics (Von Einsiedel S. and Malone, p. 14).

Recently, the 2023 Global Risks Report of the World Economic Forum described that climate and environmental risks are the core focus of global risks perceptions over the next decade – and are the risks for which we are seen to be the least prepared. The lack of deep, concerted progress on climate targets has exposed the divergence between what is scientifically necessary to achieve net zero and what is politically feasible. Growing demands on public-and private-sector resources from other crises will reduce the speed and scale of mitigation efforts over the next two years, alongside insufficient progress towards the adaptation support required for those communities and countries increasingly affected by the impacts of climate change (World Economic Forum, p.8).

As an example of the impact of climate and environmental risks in the maintenance of international peace and security, during the 9345th meeting of the UNSC last June, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, said most UN peace operations have faced a deteriorating security and political environment over the past several years.  Alongside other cross-border challenges, environmental degradation and extreme weather events — amplified by climate change — have increasingly challenged missions’ ability to carry out their mandates. As concluded in said meeting (UN Press 2023):

“With the climate crisis generating an increasing threat to global peace and security, the UNSC must ramp up its efforts to protect the Organization’s peace operations around the world and lessen the risk of conflicts emanating from rising sea levels, droughts, floods and other climate-related events.”

Considering the above, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the lack of the characterization by the UNSC of climate change as a threat to international peace and security under its mandate.

The Notion of “Threat to International Peace and Security”

Under Article 24 of the UN Charter, the UNSC has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and the authority to act on behalf of all members of the UN. The notion of “threat to the peace” can be found in article 39 of the UN Charter, opening provision of Chapter VII (also to be found in articles 1 (1) and 99) reading:

“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Nonetheless, the UN Charter left the UNSC free to define what constitutes a threat to international peace and security (Mingst et all p. 221). The concept of a “threat to the peace” has tended to expand over the years. The UNSC has substantially broadened the concepts of threats to the peace to include internal crises “where there was a plausible concern that their continuation might lead to international conflict or destabilize neighbouring countries”. As further explained by De Wet and Wood, examples of threats to peace in the practice of the UNSC have included (De Wet and Wood, paras. 10-24):

• Illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons: “illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons in many regions of the world continue to pose threats to international peace and security”.
• Any act of international terrorism: “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”.
• Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery: “a nuclear…would represent a clear threat to international peace and security”.

Regarding public health and the impact of HIV/AIDS the UNSC has chosen carefully its wording and limited itself to recognizing that “HIV can have a uniquely devastating impact on all sectors and levels of society, and that in conflict and post-conflict situations, these impacts may be felt more profoundly”. The UNSC was nonetheless willing to take this step in relation to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. In UNSC Resolution 2177 (18 September 2014), which was sponsored by 130 States, the Council determined “that the unprecedented extent of the Ebola outbreak in Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security”. This was the first and thus far only time that the UNSC determined an epidemic as such to constitute a threat to the peace in terms of article 39 of the UN Charter (De Wet and Wood, para. 23).

Should it be noted that the UNSC has not determined that the COVID-19 pandemic was a threat to the peace in terms of article 39 of the UN Charter. Instead UNSC Resolutions 2532 (1 July 2020) and 2565 (26 February 2021) relied on the language of article 33 (contained in Chapter VI UN Charter) in stating that “the unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security”. There was no actual determination of a threat to the peace (De Wet and Wood, para.24).

Concerning climate change, the UNSC has remained reluctant to equate it to a threat to the peace. The topic was placed on its agenda for the first time in April 2007. During the open debate, several representatives noted that climate change did not merely have serious environmental, social, and economic effects but also had implications for peace and security. Others expressed reservations about involving the UNSC in issues of climate change, as this would result in encroachment upon the role of other organs such as the GA and the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (UN Doc S/PV.5663).

The UNSC next engaged directly with climate change in July 2011. In opening this exchange, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressly argued that climate change “not only exacerbates threats to international peace and security; it is a threat to international peace and security”. Many delegations echoed this overall conclusion. The resulting Presidential Statement did not go as far, though. It noted only “that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security” and “that possible security implications of loss of territory of some States caused by sea-level-rise may arise, in particular in small low-lying island States”, while requesting from the Secretary-General “contextual information on, inter alia, possible security implications of climate change” (Penny, p.29).

Tensions persisted in two subsequent Arria-formula UNSC meetings addressing climate change, in 2013 (on its security implications), and again in 2015 (on its role as a threat multiplier), and in

formal Council discussions later in 2015 addressing various issues affecting Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including climate change. Although these meetings demonstrated considerable international recognition of climate change as a security issue, many states and the UNSC itself remained reluctant to consider it a “threat to international peace and security” (Penny, p.29-30).

Thus far the only context-specific action undertaken by the UNSC in relation to climate change concerned the Lake Chad Basin: UNSC Resolution 2349 (31 March 2017). In this resolution the UNSC recognized the “adverse effects of climate change and ecological changes among other factors on the stability of the Region”. However, while acknowledging the impact of climate change on a specific conflict, the UNSC neither determined that the impact as such constituted a threat to the peace, nor did it take any binding measures under Chapter VII (De Wet and Wood, para. 28). Despite these developments, the Council has remained unwilling to characterize and act to address climate change as a “threat to international peace and security” (Penny, p.30).

More recently, on 13 December 2021, the UNSC voted on a draft resolution on the security implications of climate change, proposed by Ireland and Niger. The draft emphasised the need for “a comprehensive, whole of UN approach to address climate change and its effects”. One of the proposed preambulatory paragraphs of the draft resolution read (UN Doc S/2021/990):

“Emphasising that Small Island Developing States are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and expresses deep concern that the impacts, including the loss of territory caused by the rise of the sea level, may have implications for international peace and security, (…)” (out of text emphasis).

The draft resolution was the opportunity to adopt a resolution recognizing that the impacts of the adverse effects of climate change may have implications for international peace and security, also representing the first time a thematic resolution on climate change and security had been tabled for a vote in the UNSC. The Irish-Nigerien draft resolution had the support of 12 UNSC members and was co-sponsored by 113 member states, but China, India, and Russia expressed strong reservations from the outset of the negotiations. After the co-penholders placed the draft under silence procedure on 29 November 2021, these three members broke the silence and disseminated nearly identical letters to UNSC members objecting to the initiative. In their letters, they argued that there is “no clear scientific background for equating climate change with security concerns”

(Security Council Report, p.2).

Historically France, the UK, and the US (except during the Trump administration) have supported Council engagement on this issue. While China and Russia have in the past challenged climate change references in peace operation mandates—and sought in some cases to weaken them—they have not used their veto to block mandate renewals that include such references. However Russia has opposed the broad and systematic integration of climate-related security concerns into the work of the UNSC (Security Council Report, p.2).

Particulary, the Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN has stated:

“We oppose creating a new area in the Council’s work that would establish a generic, automatic connection between climate change and international security, turning a scientific and socioeconomic issue into a politicized question” (Security Council Report, p.2).

Climate Change as a Threat to International Peace and Security

Per the 2023 Global Risks Report of the World Economic Forum, despite 30 years of global climate advocacy and diplomacy, the international system has struggled to make the required progress on climate change. The potential failure to address this existential global risk first entered the top rankings of the Global Risks Report over a decade ago, in 2011. Today, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have all reached record highs. Emission trajectories make it very unlikely that global ambitions to limit warming to 1.5°C will be achieved. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chance of breaching the 1.5°C target by as early as 2030 stands at 50%. Current commitments made by the G7 private sector suggest an increase of 2.7°C by mid-century, way above the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement  (World Economic Forum, p.21).

With 1.2°C of warming already in the system, the compounding effect of a changing climate is already being felt, magnifying humanitarian challenges, such as food insecurity which will also increasingly become a key migration driver and there are indications that it has already contributed to the emergence of terrorist groups and conflicts in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. As floods, heatwaves, droughts and other extreme weather events become more severe and frequent, a wider set of populations will be affected. Despite plans for a global goal on adaptation to be agreed at COP28, there has also been insufficient progress towards the support required for infrastructure and populations already affected by the fallout from climate change. Adaptation has not been adequately funded, with 34% of climate finance currently allocated to adaptation worldwide (World Economic Forum, p.21-22).

Consequently, as shown in the following chart, “Natural Disasters and Extreme Weather Events” are considered the second-most severe risk over the next two years while “Failure to Mitigate Climate Change” and “Failure of Climate Change Adaptation” top the rankings as the most severe risks on a global scale, followed by “Natural Disasters and Extreme Weather Events and “Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse”:

Global Risks Ranked by Severity Over the Short and Long Term

(World Economic Forum, p.6)

Taking into account the risks overview for the short and long term, the existential threat posed by climate change would alone appear to justify its characterization as a “threat to international peace and security”. Concerning the treat posted by climate change to the  SIDS, Penny argues that it is difficult to imagine how invoking Chapter VII to address the underlying cause of the projected extinction of actual UN member states could be considered ultra vires the UNSC, should it decide to act. This latter unique concern helps to differentiate climate change from other sustainable development challenges with security implications. It also diminishes the impact of ongoing uncertainty over the link between climate change and actual armed conflict. This may be significant for overcoming political opposition to further UNSC engagement with climate change by, among other things, limiting its potential precedential effect (Penny, p.41).

Regarding the impact in the national level of the characterization by the UNSC of climate change as a “threat to international peace and security” the author adds:

“Formal Council recognition of climate change as a ‘threat to international peace and security’ could propel changes in national-level climate policy and also assist already willing governments to overcome domestic political opposition to remedial action, underpinned by the implicit or explicit threat of mandatory Chapter VII measures should they not succeed (Penny, p.41).”

Within the UN System as the main forum for multilateral diplomacy to address global threats, said characterization might also permeate the work of other organs to facilitate the way to achieve the required progress on climate change.

For example, in response to the 2014 Ebola crisis the GA “continued to address this crisis following the UNSC characterization of it as a “threat to international peace and security”. The UNSC itself expressly acknowledged the ongoing role of various other bodies responding to the Ebola crisis in the very resolution characterizing it as an international security threat (Resolution 2177, 18 September 2014), referring specifically to the GA, ECOSOC, the Peacebuilding Commission, the World Health Organization and the Secretary-General, as well as additional regional organizations (Penny, p.42).

On climate change and since 2009, through Resolution 63/281 the GA already invited the relevant organs of the UN to intensify their efforts in considering and addressing climate change, including its possible security implications (UNGA 2009).

Should it be also noted that at the time this paper is written (October 2023) a timely recognition of climate change as a “threat to international peace and security” by the UNSC could contribute to the development of international law on the matter by having a considerable impact on the deliberations of the ongoing procedures on an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change” – requested by the UNGA after adopting resolution A/RES/77/276 on 29 March 2023 (ICJ, 2023).

Conclusions

UNSC permanent members recognise that climate change poses a threat to human existence. Where they disagree is on what role, if any, the UNSC should play (Security Council Report, p.2).

Being an existential treat to humanity, climate and environmental risks are the core focus of global risks perceptions over the next decade. Hence, it remains counterintuitive that as the primary UN organ concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security the UNSC has failed to characterize climate change as a “threat to international peace and security” — despite its expanding practice covering new phenomenon under said characterization.

In short, the UNSC continues to miss the adoption of a resolution officially recognizing climate change as a threat to international peace and security for the fulfilment of its mandate. Said recognition could foster changes in national-level climate policy. Likewise, a recognition on the matter by UN’s most powerful forum would facilitate synergy with other UN bodies to address this global risk. The practice of the UNSC could also guide the development of international law on the matter pending the advisory opinion by the ICJ regarding the obligations of States in respect of climate change.

As expressed by Lindsay Getschel, researcher on environmental security, (UN Peacebuilding):

“many across the world do not have the luxury to not care about this issue”

*          *          *

 List of References

• De Wet, E. and Wood, M. (2022). “Peace, Threat to the”, Oxford Public International Law, Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law.
• ICJ (2023). “The General Assembly of the United Nations requests an advisory opinion from the Court on the obligations of States in respect of climate change”, Press Release No. 2023/30, 19 April 2023, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20230419-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf
• Mingst, K. Karns, P. Lyon, A. (2022). “The United Nations in the 21st Century”, Routeldge, sixth edition.
• Penny, C. (2018). “Climate Change as a ‘Threat to International Peace and Security’.” In Climate Change and the UN Security Council, by Charlotte Ku and Shirley V. Scott, 25-46. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Security Council Report (2022). “The UN Security Council and Climate Change: Tracking the Agenda after the 2021 Veto”, available at: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/unsc_climatechange_2022.pdf
• UN Peacebuilding (2019). “Climate change recognized as ‘threat multiplier’, UN Security Council debates its impact on peace”, available at: https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/news/climate-change-recognized-%E2%80%98threat-multiplier%E2%80%99-un-security-council-debates-its-impact-peace
• UN Press (2023). “With Climate Crisis Generating Growing Threats to Global Peace, Security Council Must Ramp Up Efforts, Lessen Risk of Conflicts, Speakers Stress in Open Debate”, available at: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15318.doc.htm
• UNGA (2009). “63/281 Climate change and its possible security implications”, Sixty-third session, A/RES/63/281, 11 June 2009, available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/487/65/PDF/N0848765.pdf?OpenElement
• UNSC (2007). UN Doc S/PV.5663, Sixty-second year 5663^rd meeting, Tuesday, 17 April 2007, 10 a.m., New York, available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N07/309/08/PDF/N0730908.pdf?OpenElement
• UNSC (2021). UN Doc S/2021/990, 13 December 2021, available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N21/394/61/PDF/N2139461.pdf?OpenElement
• Von Einsiedel S. and Malone D. (2018), “Security Council”,in Weiss and Daws (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (second edition online)
• Wood, M. and Sthoeger, E. (2022). The UN Security Council and International Law, Cambridge University Press.
• World Economic Forum (2023). “Global Risks Report 2023 18^th Edition Insight Report”, available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2023.pdf

 

---

Author’s Short Bio

Student of the Master of Arts in International Law and Diplomacy offered by The University for Peace (UPEACE) and The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). Career diplomat of the Republic of Colombia currently posted in Belgium. Lawyer from Universidad del Rosario (Colombia) and Master of Laws (LL.M) in International Law from the Universidad de La Sabana (Colombia). Sebastián has participated in programmes at The Hague Academy of International Law (The Hague, The Netherlands) and The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Switzerland)

---

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE UNIVERSITY FOR PEACE