I. General Description of the Issue of Space Debris

In addition to its undoubted advantages, space exploration has a range of negative consequences of technical, environmental, or civil law. The latter means that where space debris in orbit causes harm to communications satellites and other aircraft, it is impossible to establish the particular harm-doer. “Space debris” is a general term that describes all artificial materials in the universe that people do not use for research or other purposes. This waste includes remnants of orbiters or other spacecraft parts that no longer serve useful purposes but leak fuel, coolant, various colorants, blade tips, and other debris left by space expeditions.Footnote ¹ The expected lifetime of space debris is about 25 years, but it depends on its position: in low-Earth orbit, it is highly probable that most of it burns in the atmosphere. Many satellite collisions with other aircraft that cause space debris have already been registered. The best known of them is the collision between the decommissioned (that is, with the status of space debris) Russian satellite Kosmos-2251 and the American telephone company satellite Iridium-33 on February 10, 2009. Their total mass was 1,500 kg. It broke into 2,000 pieces, part of which entered the Earth’s atmosphere and burned.Footnote ²

According to today’s data, around 750,000 objects larger than 1 cm are orbiting Earth. At average speeds of 40,000 km/h, their collision with spacecraft is roughly equivalent to a hand grenade explosion.  About 18,000 of these pieces of debris are large enough to be regularly monitored by the Earth’s surveillance systems. Space agencies can use such monitoring data to avoid collisions. With the increase in the number of objects in space, experts believe that collisions between these objects, some of which have already occurred, might become the primary source for new fragments in orbit (the Kessler effect).Footnote ³ Moreover, space organizations face new difficulties in implementing the remote sensing of Earth and space exploration.

Intensive space exploration produces other harmful effects that manifest after a certain period. Launching rockets into space from launch sites in any country causes health problems for people in their immediate vicinity. Spaceships pollute the atmosphere and can pose a threat of radioactive contamination; for example, in case of accidents during their launch or subsequent collision with space debris that generates more radioactive space debris and radiation. In collisions, contaminated objects can fall to the Earth’s surface (in 1978, a Soviet satellite fell on Canada), posing a serious threat to people’s health.Footnote ⁴

The formation of tiny particles of space debris, which is growing, disrupts the light and heat exchange that has developed over millions of years between Earth and the surrounding environment, causes environmental damage and destroys the Earth’s ozone layer.Footnote ⁵ The guarantee of protection of life on Earth from ultraviolet radiation decreases; greenhouse gases are produced that negatively affect the Earth’s climate.Footnote ⁶ At the same time, it cannot be said that the international community completely ignores this issue. Currently, technical experts are conducting studies to create special spacecraft that can maneuver and collect certain fragments of space debris. After space, debris should enter the Earth’s atmosphere, where it will burn.Footnote ⁷ In 2013, the European Space Agency proposed the Clean Space initiative and ordered the first mission to remove space debris, starting in 2025. It is also proposed that special structures be installed on the spacecraft to protect them in case of a collision with fragments of space debris. The studies also cover the improvement of the efficiency of space monitoring and accurate forecasts of possible collisions with debris.Footnote ⁸ Nevertheless, these measures are insufficient to prevent torts caused by the collision of satellites and other spacecraft with space debris and to compensate for the inflicted harm.

II. International Organizational and Legal Measures Aimed at Combating Space Debris

In international public law, a range of measures to combat space debris is already enshrined in international treaties adopted in recent decades. For example, some articles of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1966), establish the international responsibility of the states for national activities in outer space, including responsibility for the damage caused by such objects. According to Article IX of the Treaty, States Parties shall pursue studies of outer space to avoid its harmful contamination and adverse changes in the Earth’s environment resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter. However, the issue of space debris is not settled in this Treaty.

The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1971) in Article III provides liability for damage caused by a space object belonging to a state to another object, but only if the damage is due to its fault. This formulation of the issue excludes the possibility of extension of the Convention to compensation for the harm caused to spacecraft by space debris.

The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee now unites the executive bodies of 13 states (their space agencies), and the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of 2003 were developed.Footnote ⁹ They propose a range of measures to reduce the amount of debris during scheduled operations, to minimize the possibility of destruction in orbit, to remove debris from orbit after the completion of space programs, and to prevent collisions in orbit. The Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of 2007 (endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in its Resolution) and the European Code of Conduct for Space Debris Mitigation of 2004 were also adopted.Footnote ¹⁰ The Compendium of Space Debris Mitigation Standards, adopted by states and international organizations on January 26, 2018, is one of the latest documents aimed at reducing the amount of space debris. The Compendium aims to inform states of the current instruments and measures that states and international organizations have implemented and assist countries in developing similar standards. In addition to the overview of the good practices of states in preventing the formation of space debris, the document also contains provisions presenting the experience of individual countries in regulating the issues of liability for the harm caused by space debris. However, the legal status of this Compendium is only recommendatory.Footnote ¹¹

Finally, in December 2020, the United Nations issued an additional resolution on reducing space threats – Resolution A/RES/75/36 – through norms, rules, and principles of responsible behaviors. In it, the United Nations General Assembly calls for states to implement measures related to transparency and increasing confidence in exploring outer space, including information exchange, visits to facilities, and international cooperation. Though the UN encourages international collaboration, defining and implementing the terms of this cooperation is left entirely to state discretion.

Therefore, the current international instruments do not cover all the aspects of the issue of space debris; they do not mention issues of financing the elimination of the existing space debris, legal consequences of collisions between space objects and space debris, compensation for damage, etc. This means that national legislation has to assume responsibility for the development of these rules and procedures and their implementation in practice, and this experience is of interest for the further development of international space law.

III. Measures to Combat Space Debris at the National Level

The national legislation of several countries (Finland, Belgium, Austria, etc.) includes rules for preventing the formation of space debris. However, there are no such legislative rules in other states, or (as in Russia) they are concentrated only in technical bylaws.Footnote ¹² The analysis of the current national legislation of certain countries shows that we can now distinguish two approaches to the issue of space debris prevention.

One group of states (the United States, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, and some other countries) has already developed a range of advanced legal measures, including a spacecraft registration system. The other group of countries is at the stage of developing this national legislation and has already attained some achievements in this area (Nigeria, India, Brazil, South Korea). Based on the available experience of national legislation, Frans von der Dunk proposes the introduction of a licensing system for space entrepreneurs as well as the creation of an international guarantee fund, which is similar to the one that functions in relation to automobile transport at the national level in many countries and will compensate for the damage caused by unidentified space debris.Footnote ¹³

Considering the specific experience of certain countries, we should note that the experience of the United States as a major spacefaring nation in terms of space debris prevention is of the greatest interest. The United States Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, adopted in 2001, is one of the first legal acts related to this issue. These guidelines were a main source for developing the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent international documents. NASA STD 8719.14 Process for Limiting Orbital Debris and NASA-NPR-8715.6A Procedural Requirements for Limiting Orbital Debris continue to be informative reference materials for other states. In 2015, in response to the growing demand from the private space industry, Congress passed the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which facilitates commercial exploration and commercial extraction of space resources by citizens of the United States. Meanwhile, experts express certain doubts as to whether the owners of these space objects will be able to overcome the large-scale external effects, including the mass of “orbital debris” currently surrounding the Earth. This is why scholars from the United States propose several additions to United States legislation that recognize outer space as a global commons (such as the World Ocean): the growth of space debris negatively affects the world community rather than just one individual state.

This recognition will initiate the applicability of the Nаtiоnаl Envirоnment Pоlicy Аct (NEPA)Footnote ¹⁴ to low-orbit control. Currently, the NEPA requires federal agencies to thoroughly study the environmental consequences of their projects before taking any action. In this regard, M.B. Runnels suggests discussing the possibility of establishing a fee for the use of orbital objects, which will finance projects for the removal of orbital debris and research related to the removal of orbital debris. Accordingly, a comprehensive solution to the problem requires the drafting of amendments to US legislation.Footnote ¹⁵

In light of the decisions regarding orbital debris elimination, as discussed by Congress, federal agencies of the United States created the rules that require satellite operators to mitigate the effects of orbital debris after the completion of their missions and to eliminate expired satellites. For example, the Federal Communications Commission established a range of rules that all applicants must follow in order to obtain licenses for communication satellites. The applicants must provide the projects and strategies they will use to prevent any orbital debris after the satellite’s mission is over. In the same way, the Federal Aviation Administration requires operators to submit written launch plans that include flight safety plans with a detailed description of fragments dispersal at the end of the lifespan.Footnote ¹⁶

The work on establishing the requirements for space missions has also been successfully implemented in other countries. For example, Germany has exceptional product quality and safety requirements for space projects, which include mandatory requirements for space debris mitigation for all stages of space missions. These requirements comply with all the international standards developed with Germany’s contribution. In turn, the French national mechanism for space debris mitigation is represented by the Decree on Technical Regulation of March 31, 2011, issued under Act No. 2008-518 of June 3, 2008 (FSOA). The Decree contains all technical requirements for any operators and consists of special sections for launch and orbital systems.

The legal acts are the national mechanism for fulfilling France’s international obligations for space debris mitigation. The French Technical Regulation complies with these guidelines, as well as with ISO 24113. In the context of space debris, French law considers active removal technologies to be one of the key technologies of the future.Footnote ¹⁷  They are focused on reducing the amount of large (mainly physically intact) objects. The FSOA requires licenses and permits for participation in space operations. The applicants are space operators, particularly those who independently implement the space operation. The applicants must demonstrate professional, financial, and moral guarantees and comply with technical, safety, and environmental requirements.

Regarding environmental safety, the applicants must provide, among other data, risk management plans and environmental impact studies that indicate how they will avoid, reduce, or compensate for the adverse environmental impact. The FSOA does not clearly define space debris; however, it is described as non-functional objects of human origin, including fragments in Earth’s orbit or entering the Earth’s atmosphere. France applied an ambitious approach, including mitigation of space debris and its effects in its regulatory framework related to the use of outer space. Among the legal innovations that interest us, we can point out the need to obtain a license, for which the holders of licenses must provide the licensing authority with plans and measures preventing the risk of collision of space objects.

However, most national laws do not prescribe that activities in outer space must be carried out in a special way regarding space debris and the safety of space missions. This probably occurs because monitoring compliance with international requirements and rules is difficult.Footnote ¹⁸ Nevertheless, the environmental legislation of most countries enshrines two very important principles that can also be applied to outer space, making it possible (in the case of their inclusion in international treaties) to reduce the threat of growing volumes of space debris – these are the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle that has repeatedly proved to be effective in the national practice of environmental protection.

For example, the precautionary principle requires launching states to exercise extreme caution when launching objects into outer space, particularly when there is significant uncertainty about the result. Therefore, if the launch involves the danger of space debris causing irreparable damage, the precautionary principle will require the launching state and the non-governmental operator to take additional precautionary measures during the launch of the space object if it can generate space debris. This precaution will, at least, require the state and the operator to follow the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines based on normal operating procedures. The state and the operator will bear responsibility for any breach of the precautionary principle, which will be a stimulus to reduce the risk of space debris.Footnote ¹⁹

Therefore, at the moment, the issue of the harm caused to spacecraft and people by space debris is still far from being solved. At the international level, no appropriate legal regulation prevents the harm caused by space debris and its monetary compensation in tort relations. At the national level, several economically developed countries have taken some steps to create a system to prevent space torts. However, no mechanism for compensating spacecraft owners damaged by space debris collisions has been established. The reason is that there is no specific tortfeasor in this case since it is impossible to identify the owner of thousands of spacecraft pieces. Accordingly, nobody can be held liable in tort. In addition, it is extremely difficult to establish causal relationships between space debris objects and the space object from which they originate and the owner of this former space object.

IV. Practical Recommendations for Enhancing the International Legal Mechanism to Combat Space Debris

Summarizing this available experience and taking into account the danger of the studied threat, we suggest the following range of recommendations:

1. 1) It is necessary to determine which international document must be dedicated to the issue of space debris management. At the moment, experts are discussing two options: the development of a single international document for the elimination of space debris or the development of a system of bilateral agreements.Footnote ²⁰ It is also quite possible that an additional protocol to the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1971) will be prepared. We believe that developing an additional convention on space debris management is the most promising option, considering the peculiarities of the issue.

2. 2) It is necessary to determine the terminology and ways of space debris management in this international instrument. Space debris is thought to be a unique variety of the generic category of “waste,” and many legal issues can be addressed using international and national developments relating to “Earth waste.” In particular, we suggest that the right of ownership to waste be assigned to the person who produces it. Many large fragments of space debris are of material value, and as technology develops, they can be returned to Earth. If states abandon their rights to them, they will be destroyed. Considering that the greater part of space debris cannot be identified as belonging to a particular state, the proposed international convention can use the framework of common ownership of space debris by the countries launching satellites and other spacecraft. It is they who must bear the burden of expenses for the elimination of this waste as the owners.Footnote ²¹

3. 3) It is necessary to create a separate agency under the UN (or expand the functions of the Committee on Space), which could receive certain contributions from the states participating in space missions and spend them on measures to combat space debris (through research grants), to coordinate launches of spacecraft collecting such debris, to coordinate and develop the system of outer space monitoring, to maintain a unified register of not only all launched spacecraft but also large debris fragments of space debris, etc. A universal package of measures to encourage insurance companies to provide insurance coverage against collision risks between spacecraft and space debris deserves a separate discussion.

4. 4) In scientific literature, it is proposed that an international fund be established to which countries carrying out aerospace activities could transfer money to be spent on measures to reduce the volume of space debris. It could also compensate countries and private companies affected by space debris.Footnote ²² This will enable the implementation of one of the fundamental principles of international environmental law – the polluter pays. In addition, this can involve using the potential of the Global Environment Facility, which participates in solving international environmental problems and is in close contact with the UN and other organizations. If this strategy is successful, the first part of the issue under study, the prevention of the formation of space debris, and the other part, the payment of compensation to the persons affected in tort relations in case of no specific tortfeasor, will be resolved.

5. 5) In theory, the solution to any “garbage problem” implies a reduced volume of the garbage generated. This requires the imposition of additional duties (entailing additional expenses) on the states and private companies launching spacecraft in relation to the planning of disposal of satellites that exhaust their resources. Though the resistance of private businesses to the new rules is inevitable, this is the only possibility to reduce the volume of debris instead of combating its consequences. Concerning Earth waste, several countries have successfully implemented this option within the framework of the circular economy concept, and its main provisions are also applicable to space.Footnote ²³ In addition to adopting international legal rules to mitigate new pollution of near-Earth space, it is necessary to develop procedures to eliminate the available objects of space debris internationally.Footnote ²⁴ Only then will it be possible to discuss an integrated approach to resolving this issue.

6. 6) The impact of space debris causes economic and environmental harm. It is widely believed that burning fragments of space debris in the atmosphere and their fall into the World Ocean is harmless, but this position is very doubtful.Footnote ²⁵

7. 7) In contrast to the documents adopted before, the proposed international convention must resolve the issues of liability of states and private companies for violation of the rules for a reduction of the volume of space debris (for example, the launch of spacecraft that cannot return to Earth are doomed to become debris).

8. 8) Along with international cooperation, there is a positive experience for certain states, particularly the practice of licensing spacecraft launches in France and some other countries. Voluntary study and dissemination of this experience to other spacefaring nations, with the introduction of compulsory licensing of space activities, would increase the responsibility of these states and the private companies launching spacecraft for various purposes.

9. 9) Several principles of national environmental law have proven effective, the application of which gained considerable national experience in many countries: this should be extended to international space law. The precautionary principle is one of them. It is already used in the International Law of the Sea and can potentially solve space debris issues. This principle is especially useful when scientific evidence is insufficient to make balanced decisions that have a significant potential impact on human health and the environment. Applying this principle in international space law will mean that spacefaring nations will be obliged to avoid those space activities that include a reasonable risk of the emergence of new items of space debris.

I. Essence of Climate Threats and Positions of National Courts in the Protection of Climate Civil Rights

The issue of global climate change and its negative consequences for the environment, life, health, and the property of citizens is one of the most discussed in international legal science. At the moment, in international and national law, there are sufficiently well-developed mechanisms of compensation for the harm caused by violation of the requirements of the national environmental legislation (for example, the emission of harmful substances in excess of the established limits) and the harm caused by an emergency natural or person-made accident or disaster. There are even cases of compensation for the harm caused by one state to another due to a hostile impact on the state of its environment.Footnote ²⁶

However, despite this well-developed compensation framework for local consequences of human activity on nature, more complex cases of the harm caused to nature and the health of citizens are poorly regulated by national legislation and poorly protected in judicial practice. As in the case of space debris, climate torts have two aspects: the issue of their prevention and the issue of compensation for the harm caused to the life, health, and property of citizens (property of legal entities) as a result of torts with the impossibility of establishing the tortfeasor. Meanwhile, all countries register many manifestations of global climate change causing harm annually. These manifestations are mainly related to drought, agricultural losses, and damage to the fishing and forestry industries (especially when pests not characteristic of a particular climatic zone appear in the forests).Footnote ²⁷ This circumstance has led to an expected trend in judicial practice associated with attempts to link the occurrence of damage from hurricanes and other natural disasters to the activities of energy or other industrial companies that emit greenhouse gases. However, all first attempts to restrict their activities in court were unsuccessful.Footnote ²⁸ Attempts to recover from the climate harm caused by the US automotive industry were equally unsuccessful.Footnote ²⁹

Scholars of the United States explain this failure by the fact that the filed claims were based on the thesis that certain industries (the oil, electric, utility, and automotive sectors) are allowed to emit too much CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, and in this regard should be required to reduce their emissions. However, federal courts do not possess the institutional expertise to make such complex policy determinations. To adjudicate a “public nuisance” claim based on global warming, the courts would be required to sort through and balance an array of competing interests—including environmental, industrial, commercial, foreign policy, security, and consumer choice concerns—and decide how much CO₂ and other greenhouse gases the targeted industries should be allowed to emit. It is simply not the role of the courts to engage in such policymaking.Footnote ³⁰

This is why claims against national governments regarding the lack of effectiveness of their work in reducing greenhouse gas emissions were more successful. For example, in 2015, a Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government, stating that its recent revision of goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions violated its constitutional obligations. The court upheld this claim and obliged the Dutch government to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, finding the government’s existing pledge to reduce emissions by 17% insufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement of keeping average annual temperature increases within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial conditions. The court concluded that the state must take climate change mitigation measures due to the severity of the consequences of climate change and the resulting risks and cited, among other principles, the “no harm” principle of international law. Though the court did not directly prescribe any ways to reduce emissions, it pointed to two possibilities – emissions trading and tax measures. This decision is quite innovative in the available judicial practice of separation of powers because it ordered the government to tighten the emission restrictions.Footnote ³¹

Some proceedings at the beginning of 2023 were pending before the US courts. They included a lawsuit challenging the law of the State of California that required all new cars and light trucks sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The plaintiffs thought the law would have a disproportionate adverse impact on the low-income categories of citizens and make it difficult for them to access reliable vehicles. In addition, this law was inconsistent with the state’s legitimate interests in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Footnote ³²

In another case, sixteen Puerto Rico municipalities filed suit, holding fossil fuel oil and gas companies liable for losses from the 2017 hurricanes and ongoing economic losses since 2017. In particular, the municipalities alleged that the defendants were responsible for 40.01% of all global industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1965 to 2017. These emissions caused climate change and increased the intensity of Hurricanes Irma and Maria.Footnote ³³

In a third case, the Attorney General and several other officials of New Jersey (US) sued the fossil fuel producer Exxon Mobil Corp. for losses due to the (alleged) considerable role of the defendant in climate change and damage to the State of New Jersey. According to the plaintiffs, the company’s emissions resulted in devastating climate change in the state, causing additional expenditure for protecting people, businesses, infrastructure, and natural resources, as well as rising sea levels, drought, and ocean acidification.Footnote ³⁴

Summarizing the available judicial practice in climate cases, experts distinguish the five most significant trends (areas) in climate cases: forcing governments to fulfill their legislative and political climate obligations; linking the consequences of resource extraction to climate change; establishing that specific emissions are the direct cause of particular adverse effects of climate change; establishing responsibility for failures (or efforts) to adapt to climate change; and applying the public trust doctrine to climate change. It should be noted that some court cases go beyond these “classical” frameworks. A typical example is the climate claims of small indigenous peoples, raising the question of the relationship and interrelation of environmental harm, climate change, and human rights guarantees.

In December 2005, a tribe of Inuit living in the Arctic filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, accusing the United States of violating its human rights obligations by failing to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. The petition detailed the effects of rising Arctic temperatures on the ability of the Inuit to enjoy a wide variety of human rights, including the right to life. However, their asserted claims were dismissed.Footnote ³⁵

Maldives unsuccessfully raised the issue of the linkage between harm and violations of human rights by climate change at the international level, stating that rising sea levels and other effects of climate change threaten the human rights of the residents of small islands. These residents’ right to life would be harmed by the increased frequency and severity of flooding; their property rights would be affected by the loss of homes and other possessions because of inundation; enjoyment of their rights to health, food, water, and housing would be infringed by rising waters and temperatures; and the loss of the country itself would destroy their collective right to self-determination.Footnote ³⁶

However, does it follow from these failures that there is a need to abandon the claims for compensation for climate harm? It does not seem so. This is more likely to imply the need for theoretical research and a search for ways to develop judicial redress in connection with climate change.Footnote ³⁷ This will require further development of the evidence theory, judicial environmental expert review, and the science of climatology. The latter’s achievements allow us to prove the causal relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and caused harm.

Special attention must be paid to whether compensation for the harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions produced in one state may be awarded to the affected citizens in another. This will require the development of a new theory of international legal environmental liability. In its development, deciding how to consider individual enterprises or states’ relatively small contribution to climate change and what formula to use to recover compensation for the caused harm will be necessary. Moreover, the atmosphere contains greenhouse gases stretching back hundreds of years, and it is not clear how to distinguish today’s contribution from the previous pollution, given that the movement of greenhouse gases cannot be traced.Footnote ³⁸

II. Role of International Environmental Funds in Compensating for Climate Harm the Doer of Which is Impossible to Establish

The issue of tort liability resulting from harm caused to persons due to climate change has not yet been convincingly resolved at the national level because of the lack of specific tortfeasors. One of the options to this question can be the development of a system of international and national environmental funds, with the expansion of the sources of their financing and the establishment of the possibility of making payments to citizens and organizations affected by climate change and the negative processes generated by it in international treaties.

At the moment, the system and the main areas of the activities of international environmental funds are described below:

1. 1) The Environmental Fund, established in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, is one of the most famous international funds and is the core financial fund of the UN Environment Program (UNEP). This fund functions due to contributions from the UN member states, and its main focus is financing environmental projects on the 2030 Agenda. Currently, 85% of the Fund is used to finance thematic programs. A special mention should be made of the subprogram of identification of new emerging environmental issues (such as through the Frontiers series). If we refer to the official reports, we find that climate protection issues are constantly the central focus of its administrators. For example, in 2016, the Frontiers’ report included a Loss and Damage chapter, which described the adverse effects of climate change that cannot be avoided through mitigation and adaptation measures. The 2017 report considered climate change’s influence on people’s relocation to other places. The 2018/2019 report identified shortcomings in the climate adaptation strategy, and in 2022, the authors of the report considered the influence of climate on the change of the fire regime as well as the influence of climate on the life cycle of plants and animals. Certainly, the Fund’s financing is not limited to this; it extends to other projects.Footnote ³⁹

2. 2) The Green Climate Fund was created in 2010 by the countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It has the status of a financial mechanism for its implementation. Its task is to finance climate projects in order to achieve the ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The investments of the Fund aim to achieve the maximum impact on developing countries, supporting paradigm shifts in both the mitigation of the effects of climate change and their adaptation. The Fund finances these two strategies on a 50:50 basis. It also focuses on financing adaptation projects for particularly vulnerable countries, including least developed countries, small island developing states, and African states.Footnote ⁴⁰

3. 3) The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a multi-faceted fund to combat large-scale environmental problems, including biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution of water reservoirs and land surfaces. Its grants are intended to support developing countries in fulfilling assumed international environmental obligations. The GEF bridges governments, indigenous peoples, and civil society representatives interested in settling environmental issues. For the past 30 years, the GEF has provided more than $22 billion in grants and blended finance ($120 billion in co-financing) and implemented more than 5,000 national and regional projects.Footnote ⁴¹

4. 4) The Adaptation Fund finances specific programs for the adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Since 2010, the Adaptation Fund has committed about $850 million to 123 adaptation and climate resilience improvement projects.Footnote ⁴²

5. 5) Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 established the Recovery and Resilience Facility. On its establishment, the Regulation states that the EU member states support the green transition and contribute to achieving the Union’s 2030 climate targets set out in Point (11) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999. Thus, EU countries moved toward complying with the objective of EU climate neutrality by 2050, thereby contributing to upward economic and social convergence, restoring and promoting sustainable growth and the integration of the economies of the Union, and fostering the creation of high-quality employment. To achieve that general objective, the specific objective of the Facility shall be to provide Member States with financial support to achieve the milestones and targets of reforms and investments as set out in their recovery and resilience plans. That specific objective shall be pursued in close cooperation with the Member States concerned. Support from the Facility shall not, unless in duly justified cases, substitute recurring national budgetary expenditure and shall respect the principle of additionality of Union funding.

6. 6) The German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU) finances innovative environmental projects focusing on small and medium-sized companies. Its environmental funding activities focus on technology and research, nature protection, environmental communication, and the protection of cultural values. The foundation was established in 1990 and began its work in 1991. As of June 2022, it has supported over 10,600 projects with a funding volume of around 1.96 billion euros. The foundation’s current capital is 2.39 billion euros. Funded projects should achieve sustainable effects, give impulses, and lead to a “multiplier effect.” It is the objective of the DBU to contribute to the solution of current environmental problems, particularly those resulting from unsustainable business practices and lifestyles. It sees the crucial challenges primarily in climate change, biodiversity loss, unsustainable use of natural resources, and harmful emissions. The funding topics are linked to current scientific findings on the Planetary Boundaries and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.Footnote ⁴³

7. 7) Dozens of public environmental funds have recently been established. They have different funding sources and areas of activity, including financing various climate projects. These non-governmental funds also include the Global Environment Centre Foundation (Japan).Footnote ⁴⁴

The conducted overview shows that the current system of environmental funds, in general, copes with the settlement of issues of financing the prevention of climate change (and, accordingly, the harm caused by this change); however, it is hardly aimed at addressing another aspect of the issue under study – the determination of the mechanism for compensation for harm where it is impossible to establish the tortfeasor. This requires further discussion of the mechanism for financing these funds and the procedure for their payment of compensation, which is beyond the scope of this article.

Nevertheless, we believe that the first step in developing the compensation mechanism for the harm to citizens resulting from climate change could be achieved by expanding the list of the grounds and procedures for recognizing natural emergencies caused by climate change.

This is impossible at the current level of development of science and technology; however, this is the area of the future. Considering that climate problems are common to all countries, developments relating to these compensation mechanisms are obviously not enough at the national level. Settlement of this issue will likely require expansion of the jurisdiction of the UN International Court of Justice (to consider disputes between states on compensation for the harm resulting from climate change caused by violation of international treaties or customary law), as well as the adoption of an international treaty (an additional protocol to the current 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) on the mechanism of compensation for the harm caused by states that lead to climate change.Footnote ⁴⁵ Though few people now believe that climate change’s influence on citizens’ health will be proven, it should be noted that, until recently, the recognition of environmental diseases seemed impossible.Footnote ⁴⁶ Finally, as in the case of compensation for harm from space debris, there is still potential for developing insurance cover against climate harm risks.Footnote ⁴⁷

The above measures can help to reduce the annual damage caused by climate change, which may reach $1 trillion by 2040.Footnote ⁴⁸ Suppose the world community decides to start developing an international treaty on compensation for climate harm. In that case, it will be necessary to formulate a new understanding of climate human rights and the mechanism for their protection, including the rights of climate refugees. This new international treaty must be developed based on achieving the most progressive national legislation and current judicial practice in climate cases (available on the Sabin Center website, USA).Footnote ⁴⁹

III. Main Areas of Addressing Climate Issues at the Level of the European Union, Russia, and in Other Acts of National Legislation

Without trying to cover all countries and their climate laws, we will attempt to show the main areas of national climate regulation aimed at mitigating the risk (climate change prevention) and compensating for the resulting losses.

1. 1) The concept of risk is one of the key legal categories in the area of compensation for harm caused by climate change, where it is impossible to identify the harm-doer. In our view, climate risk should be understood as an environmental threat involving the possibility of a potential impact of natural disasters that are caused by past human economic activity and are likely to cause damage to the life, health, or property of citizens (property of legal entities) on the socio-economic system of one or more states. For example, in 2015, the Volgograd Region in the Russian Federation faced a severe drought, which damaged crops, forests, water bodies, aquatic bioresources, etc. Though the Russian authorities provided no official confirmation of the causal links between greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and drought, we cannot exclude the possibility of abnormal natural disasters for this particular area exactly for this reason. An exceptional legal act developed by the regional authorities and dedicated to the issues of the adaptation of the region to climate change is an indirect confirmation of this conclusion.Footnote ⁵⁰ Similar work is carried out successfully in other countries, such as Spain. Accordingly, developing documents with measures for adaptation to natural disasters caused by climate change at the national and regional levels will facilitate the mitigation (or even prevention) of the negative effects of these disasters, which will also reduce the risk of harm to citizens of the country.

2. 2) The European Union has achieved the most success in developing a strategy for combating climate change. Following Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of June 30, 2021, on achieving climate neutrality, the EU and its Member States have set an ambitious goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, mainly by regulating emissions and removing greenhouse gases from across the entire Union, investing in green technologies, and protecting the environment. The document states that greenhouse gas emissions must be urgently reduced, particularly the likelihood of extreme weather events. It is also necessary to address the growing climate-related risks to health, including more frequent and intense heatwaves, wildfires and floods, food and water safety, security threats, and the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. With this purpose, the Regulation establishes a binding objective of climate neutrality in the European Union by 2050 in pursuit of the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. It enshrines a framework for reversing and gradually reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The mechanism for achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction targets currently implemented in the EU may also be of interest internationally; it can be used to develop new nature protection agreements.

3. 3) Implementing a circular economy at international and national levels is essential for effectively counteracting global climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the European Green Deal authors,Footnote ⁵¹ the closed-loop economy action plan involves transitioning to new technologies in all sectors, especially resource-intensive ones (textiles, construction, electronics, and plastics). In addition, the European Commission will pay particular attention to addressing intentionally added microplastics and unintentionally released plastics. The circular economy action plan (CEAP) will also include a range of measures to encourage businesses to provide consumers with reusable, durable, and repairable materials and products. New business models based on the lease of goods and services and shared use will play a particular role as long as they are sustainable and affordable. Creating a single reliable and integrated market for secondary raw materials and byproducts is no less important for promising use at the international level, which will require deep cooperation in all value chains. The latter measure is especially relevant regarding electronic waste that contains many valuable materials and elements.

4. However, the transition to a circular economy, involving, among other things, rapid waste reduction and new processing technologies, can only be implemented on an international scale. No matter how successful the EU’s attempts are, without the similar achievements of China, India, Russia, and other countries, this effect will be limited; it will require the development of an international treaty that considers the EU’s experience. This measure will reduce the amount of waste and greenhouse gases and contribute to mitigating the threat, thus creating guarantees of no harm due to climate change.

5. 5) The sale of quotas for greenhouse gas emissions among states is one of the most effective tools in combating average annual temperature increases; it also serves as one of the essential guarantees of human environmental rights.Footnote ⁵² Today, trade in quotas have not yet become widespread for numerous reasons. In our view, the development of a framework agreement for the sale of quotas for emissions, which the UN could recommend to the participants of the Paris Agreement, could be a stimulus for the development of trade in quotas. However, developing this agreement will inevitably result in discussing several aspects of its content, which will be covered by international and national law. We note that there are 18 emissions trading schemes worldwide, and their number grows yearly; they include European, Swiss, Kazakhstan, and some other emissions trading systems,Footnote ⁵³ each with its own significant features. We also observe attempts to harmonize various trading systems in quotas for greenhouse gas emissions. An example is the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems of December 7, 2017, which speaks in favor of international cooperation and the possibility of concluding a framework agreement on the trade in quotas.

   Therefore, we can observe a different level of development in two areas concerning the climate issue: the prevention of climate change and compensation payments for the harm caused by climate torts. In contrast to the issue of combating space debris, the climate field has a sufficiently large number of international and national legal acts dedicated to preventing climate change and the resulting harm to life, health, and property. At the same time, despite numerous claims (mainly in courts of the United States), there is still no effective compensation mechanism in international and national law for the harm caused by climate change.

   This is due to the complexity of proving causal links between today's emissions of individual industrial enterprises and the amount of greenhouse gases accumulated for the years after the Industrial Revolution. Meanwhile, the judicial practice of certain countries shows the effectiveness of claims against the authorities regarding the insufficiency of their efforts to combat climate change. The analysis of national legislation shows that it is focused on the mitigation and adaptation to climate change rather than creating a compensation mechanism for climate harm; that is, it is preventive to a certain degree.

In the same area of preventing climate change and climate harm, we can observe particular achievements of the international community, especially in coordinating efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement). Meanwhile, the concept of climate risk requires further doctrinal development; international cooperation must be continued in terms of regulating trade in quotas for greenhouse gas emissions, developing the mechanism of financing climate projects from specialized environmental funds, encouraging the transition to circular economy standards that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

III. Issues of Compensation for the Harm Caused to the World Ocean