This document argues that climate change constitutes a violation of human rights and the responsibility to protect doctrine, opening up states that are significant contributors to climate change to potential military intervention. It summarizes the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change and its impacts. It frames climate change as a tragedy of the commons problem affecting the global atmosphere. While agreements like the Kyoto Protocol have sought solutions, implementation has been largely symbolic and developing nations have resisted restrictions.

1. Stitt1
In this paper, I will argue that the detrimental effects of Climate Change on the world
population open itself up to being included in the modern Just War doctrine of Responsibility to
Protect. States that are egregious offenders, after all avenues have been exhausted, open
themselves up legally to military intervention by the international community. Due to recent
theory and practice of international law, when egregious human rights violations are committed,
the world has a duty to intervene.
To accomplish my conclusion of being able to justly intervene in a state’s affairs,
militarily if required, due to environmental damage currently being done, I will argue first that
Climate Change is a world altering and damaging phenomenon, second that there are things that
can be done to curb Climate Change and third that military intervention is plausible and just.
Cause and Effect of Climate Change
Man-made climate change is well documented. Through humankind’s use of fossil fuels,
extensive industrial farming practices and inability to regulate waste, the environment is being
systematically shifted on a global scale. We are burning massive amounts of carbon fossil fuels,
adding exponentially to the effects of climate change. Records from tree rings and ice cores show
rise in temperature over the last one hundred fifty years relating to rise in carbon usage during
the industrialization of the globe. The rise in industrial farming has increased the amount of
methane, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. Mean global temperatures are predicted to rise 2
to 4.5 degrees Celsius in the twenty-first century. The melting of ice in the sea will lead to higher
ocean levels.1
1 Schlesinger, William H. “Climate Change.” Interpretation 65, no. 4 (October 2011): 378–90,340.

2. Stitt2
In, The Copenhagen Diagnosis, a compilation of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles
led by University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre in 2011, it is stated that
greenhouse gasses are rising, global temperatures are rising, ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps are
still melting, sea level is rising faster than previously predicted and, ultimately, without
intervention damage to the world’s climate system is irreversible if there is no man-made
intervention soon.2 Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is greater today than in the
last 80,000 years and as a result the last ten year period has been, on average, warmer than then
the ten years prior and warmer than at the outset of the industrial revolution.3
The result of changes to the climate are not just warmer average temperatures and higher
sea levels. The changes in the climate have directly resulted in more extreme weather events
throughout the world. The increase in temperature has made extremes in precipitation on both
ends; for example, excessive drought in the Western United States.4 According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) over the past decades, an increase in tropical
storms(hurricanes and typhoons) has been linked to the rise of sea temperatures.5
As a further result of rising temperatures, the IPCC states that as temperature continues to
rise, the warming soil will emit more carbon dioxide and further add to the effect.6
Furthermore, Climate Change has indirect impacts on human beings. A warmer, wetter
world leads to disease and has unpredictable effects on crops and animal life. Insect borne
diseases such as malaria will spread to further places and require more investment for
containment. The ability to grow certain crops will shift to Northern or Southern areas depending
2 Allison,Ian.TheCopenhagen Diagnosis. Oxford: Elsevier,2011. xiii,xiv.
3 Ibid,9
4 Ibid,17
5 ibid
6 Ibid,23

3. Stitt3
on the crop and location. Animal migration patterns have already, and will continue to, adapt to
the changing climate, altering fragile ecosystems.7 It is projected that climate change will cause
the displacement of people due to extreme weather and unreliable food conditions.8
The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. The warming of the Earth due to climate
change increases the evaporation rate of bodies of water, including large bodies such as oceans,
and creates a cycle where more water vapor is formed through evaporation and exponentially
increases the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.9
Showing human involvement in the deterioration of the environment, The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), in 2001, made a list of 12 factors involved
in the cooling and warming of the climate: Halocarbons(nitrous oxide, methane and carbon
dioxide), the natural stratospheric ozone, sulfates, carbon fossil fuel burning, biomass burning,
mineral dust, aerosol, aviation(a miniscule percentile), land use and natural solar activity.10 The
fifth such assessment by the IPCC comes to a couple startling conclusions:
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than
any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest
30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment
is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean
surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85
7 Schlesinger, William H. “Climate Change.” Interpretation 65, no. 4 (October 2011): 378–90,340.
8 Climate Change 2013 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Accessed November 20,
2014.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf., 11
9 Cotton, William. Human Impacts on Weather and Climate. New York: Cambridge University Press,2007., 174-175
10 Ibid,182

4. Stitt4
[0.65 to 1.06] °C2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced
datasets exist.11
Over the period 1992 to 2011, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing
mass (high confidence), likely at a larger rate over 2002 to 2011. Glaciers have continued
to shrink almost worldwide (high confidence). Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
has continued to decrease in extent (high confidence). There is high confidence that
permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s in response
to increased surface temperature and changing snow cover.12
According to the IPCC’s 2014 assessment report, “Total anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute increases between
2000 and 2010, despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies.”13 Despite the
minimal efforts made toward curbing climate change, the trend toward higher temperatures
continues.
The IPCC is blunt in their assessment of where the world is going in regard to climate
change.
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting
changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe,
pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change
11 Climate Change 2013 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Accessed November 20,
2014.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf, 3
12 Ibid,4
13 ibid,5

5. Stitt5
would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which,
together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.14
Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission
scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that
extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The
ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.15
Rising temperature and sea level are not the primary cause of concern in exploring global
climate change. Fishing, staple foods(rice, wheat), renewable water sources are all negatively
impacted by climate change.16
Mitigating the damage of climate change can reduce risk in both the short and long
term.17 Reducing production of greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide, will limit the
effects of climate change.18 In order to reduce the impact of climate change, steps will be
required of state actors, for example a reduction to zero emission of carbon dioxide in the near
future.19 According to the IPCC, these reductions can be taken in the following way, “Emissions
can be substantially lowered through changes in consumption patterns, adoption of energy
savings measures, dietary change and reduction in food wastes.”20 The IPCC, in their fifth
assessment report, states that it is critical the international community cooperates to fix the
damage done by climate change.21 This can be done through international governmental
14 Climate Change 2013 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Accessed November 20,
2014.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf, 7
15 ibid,8
16 ibid,10
17 ibid,13
18 ibid
19 ibid,14
20 ibid,19
21 ibid,20

6. Stitt6
organizations, specifically the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change(UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and other bodies with expertise and reach.22
Furthermore, it requires states to shift policies friendly to the mitigation of the damage caused by
climate change.23 The IPCC stresses that both national and international actors should strive
toward sustainable development to help curb climate change.24 The advice they give is as
follows: Spheres of change to allow transformation(social and technical innovation, shifts in
behavior and value systems), further educating to instill virtue for the environment, economic
incentives and punishments, better social safety nets, conservation, crop rotation and reduction of
gender inequality.25
Approximately one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by agriculture,
forestry and other land uses(AFOLU).26 The solution to this issue is reduction in deforestation,
afforestation, management of grazing and farm land.27
The solution is simple to state: reduce man-made carbon emissions.28 The political and
economic realities, though, are quite different. Human-kind has become used to a certain
lifestyle. An easy lifestyle that fossil fuels help provide. In the developed nations, fossil fuels
provide cheap sources of energy to provide a low-cost lifestyle. Developing nations rely on
22 Climate Change 2013 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Accessed November 20,
2014.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf, 20
23 ibid
24 ibid,21
25 ibid,26
26 Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Accessed
November 20, 2014. http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-
policymakers_approved.pdf.,25
27 ibid
28 Schlesinger, William H. “Climate Change.” Interpretation 65, no. 4 (October 2011): 378–90,340.

7. Stitt7
cheap fossil fuels to help spur along industrial growth and catch up with their well-to-do
neighbors.
Climate Change as the Tragedy of the Commons
In their journal article, Modern Global Climate Change, Thomas Karl and Kevin
Trenberth state the, “Atmosphere is a global commons.”29 It is precisely the Tragedy of The
Commons I wish to explore further. For if we establish that Climate Change is a global problem
and that it infringes on the commons shared by all nations, we will be further in our proof that all
nations have a stake in preventing man-made greenhouse emissions through any means,
including and up to war.
According to Garrett Hardin in his classic article, The Tragedy of the Commons, the
source of many of our problems of pollution, property destruction and environmental catastrophe
are due to the commons nature of environment. With our current iterations of political, moral and
legal philosophy, we are unable to address issues common to all mankind. Civil liberties ensure
families are able to grow as large as the parents deem fit with no regard given whatsoever to the
impact on society or planet. The liberal idea of property rights lends itself to pollution of
common waterways and land. Both civil and property rights are codified in law and justified in
declaration with only thought of the individual in mind. Restrictions on the Tragedy of the
Commons can be found in tax and regulation, but we dare not go far, because as a society
29 Karl, Thomas R., and Kevin E. Trenberth. “ModemGlobal Climate Change.” Science 302, no. 5651 (December 5,
2003): 1719–23.

8. Stitt8
injustice is preferred over total ruin, which is seen as a possibility if the modern liberal way of
society is infringed upon.30
With the work of Garrett Hardin and his Tragedy of the Commons as a foundation, we
can look at now the modern issues of environmental concern in a new light. Pollution from
industry and individuals inside nations cause Climate Change and if we see the atmosphere and
oceans as a common property amongst all peoples of the world, we can justify measures to curb
such detractors of the environment as fossil fuel burning and factory farming. Just as the
government of a nation has a right to regulate public spaces deemed property of the people of
that nation, the world as a whole has a right to regulate to keep from polluting the public
property of the globe.
Eric Posner and David Weisbach explore the idea of climate change as a tragedy of the
commons in Climate Change Justice. The authors state,
Climate scientists have taught us that the atmosphere is a limited resource similar to roads
or fisheries— the atmosphere can only safely absorb a limited amount of carbon dioxide.
Therefore, whenever people engage in activities that emit carbon, such as heating,
cooling, transportation, or the use of metals, paper, cement, chemicals, or meat, they
deplete the resource but do not pay a price for the harm they impose on others.31
Posner and Weisbach argue that there are two distinct solutions to solve the atmospheric
commons conundrum. First, a governmental entity may order the reduction of greenhouse gases
30 Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” American Association for the Advancement of Science 162, no.
3859 (December 13, 1968): 1243–48.
31 Posner, Eric A., and Weisbach,David.ClimateChange Justice.Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press,
2010.ProQuest ebrary. Web. 20 November 2014. 42-43

9. Stitt9
by direct regulation of pollution.32 The second option is governmental mandate on the market,
such as cap and trade policies.33 What they do not do, though, is specifically point out the
inherent issues in getting all actors to be on board with advised program solutions. In order to
solve the tragedy of the commons there must be reciprocity on the part of all players.
The Kyoto Protocols
The solution, by the international community, to the problem of the global environment
as a collective good is the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol states that
through factors such as burning of carbon based fuels and deforestation, climate change is an
international issue.34 Countries debated merits and detractors such as stunting growth of
developing nations and reducing competitiveness of developed nations, but eventually came up
with a framework that included cap and trade policies, credit for carbon sinks(forests, etc. that
soak up pollution), and deadlines for implementation of protocols.35
Problems with the solutions
Most legislation around the world concerning the reduction and reversal of climate
change has been mostly symbolic.36 While the developed world has been mostly symbolic in the
legislating of climate change law, the developing world has been hostile at some times toward
the restrictions proposed.
32 Posner, Eric A., and Weisbach,David.ClimateChange Justice.Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press,
2010.Ebook. 43
33 ibid
34 Stiles,Kendall W. Case Histories in International Politics. New York; Pearson, 2013.210
35 Ibid,212-215
36 Posner, Eric A., and Weisbach,David.ClimateChange Justice.Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press,
2010.ebook. 59

10. Stitt10
Human Rights Violation
The ignoring of climate change by states is a clear violation of human rights. The
problems of climate change and perspective solutions are clearly laid out, yet nothing is done.
The IPCC has laid out the fact that climate change has had effect on food, water and health of
human beings, basic rights shared by all.37 Article 25 of the United Nation’s Universal
Declaration of Human rights states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and
medical care and necessary social services…”38 The effects of climate change clearly effect all
stated in Article 25.
Oxfam International, a human rights based NGO, goes further in pointing out exactly
how climate change violates rights put forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The right to life and security in Article 3 is impacted by the increase in death and disease due to
intense weather events, the right to food is violated due to shrinking growing seasons and lower
crop yields, the right to sustenance is violated by reduced water flow due to climate change and
the right to health is violated by changing weather patterns effecting tropical disease.39
Climate change clearly violates human rights and if nothing is done by states to mitigate
the damage, it will continue to do so. The international community has a responsibility to protect
in the case of rights violations due to climate change. Especially when the violation of these
37 Climate Change and Human Rights A Rough Guide. International Council on Human Rights, 2008.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/Submissions/136_summary.pdf. 3
38 “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
39 Climate Wrongs and Human Rights. Oxfam International. Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/climatechange/submissions/oxfam_international.pdf., 6

11. Stitt11
human rights is known and ignored by the state to cause great injury to persons and therefore can
be classified under Article 7 of the Rome Statute as a Crime Against Humanity.40
Responsibility To Protect
Responsibility To Protect(R2P) was put forth by the United Nations General Assembly to
evolve international politics and provide a roadmap to intervention in special cases where states
are unable or unwilling to solve grave issues on their own. Although each state has the
responsibility to protect their citizenry, if they fail in that obligation the international body(in the
form of the United Nations theoretically) should take collective action to prevent further
violations of basic rights.41 The report boldly states that human rights violations of the 20th
century, including examples of the Holocaust, killing fields in Cambodia and genocide in
Rwanda, shows that sometimes states are unwilling to follow certain levels of decency.42 The
report on the implementation of Responsibility To Protect further goes on to state that
sovereignty is a responsibility toward the citizenry.43 Therefore, according to the U.N., “the
responsibility to protect is an ally of sovereignty, not an adversary.”44 By stating that the
citizenry of a nation-state are a part of the equation of sovereignty and not just the leadership of
the state, it gives the international body an ability to intervene on behalf of the citizenry.
40 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm.
41
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm.,4
42 Ibid,5
43 Ibid,6
44 Ibid,7

12. Stitt12
Several times since the inception of R2P, it has been successfully implemented in
military action. Libya and Côte d’Ivoire saw R2P successfully implemented on a military
protection scale in 2011, due to egregious violations of human rights.45
The Path To War
When all resources have been exhausted in curbing pollution from one nation, for
example, the United Nations has both given incentive to not pollute to a nation and failing that
has sanctioned. All other modes of diplomacy have failed. What can then be done? Can the
international community justify attacking a state if they are unwilling to curb their production of
greenhouse gasses? Skipping the metaethical analyses of whether or not it is just to, for example,
state that a developing country can no longer continue harming the environment. It is possible
they are required to continue burning of fossil fuels to catch up with the developed world. Or it is
possible more enlightened developed nations are attempting to dissuade another developed
nation from pursuing their excesses. Whatever the reasons and meta analysis may be, we can
assume that one nation is justly and rightly attempting to persuade another nation to reduce
carbon emissions and that other nation, for nefarious reasons, is not complying. Further, we shall
assume that all avenues of reasonable compromise have been attempted and that the polluter
nation is not willing to stop.
According to the philosopher, John Rawles, Just War Theory is the mechanism by which
well ordered peoples conduct warfare with those outside the scope of order(outlaw states).46 It is
45 Background Information on the Right To Protect. United Nations.Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml.
46 Rawls,John. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1999.Print.89

13. Stitt13
the way in which civilization deals with the uncivilized and has been, for better or worse,
expanded, defined and worked on over the course of millennia.
All things being equal, it may be the only possible solution to prevent egregious pollution
is war. Is this war justified, though? Saint Thomas Aquinas, a medieval scholastic philosopher,
posited that war can be just in three distinct, yet required ways: War is waged by a sovereign
state, war must be for a good purpose and peace must be the central motive of waging war.47 In
the case of justifying war against a nation destroying the world through pollution and enhancing
the rate of Climate Change through the production of greenhouse gases, it more than fills this
criteria. First, it will be a recognized government(or body of governments) declaring war.
Second, the purpose of waging war is just and good in its outcome being that it is to prevent
further destruction to the global ecosystem. Third, the goal of intervention is the peaceful
inclusion of sovereign citizens in the international community.
There is no way getting around the fact that declaring war on a nation for the purpose of
mitigating environmental damage is an act of intervention. Therefore, we can look upon
engaging in just warfare against a polluting nation under a moral imperative. A state not
mitigating Climate Change is committing violations of human rights on an international scale
and therefore intervention is justified under R2P.
In the case of violations of human rights when a citizenry is unable(or perhaps in our
case, unwilling) to intervene on their own behalf, it is the right and obligation of the international
community to correct the injustice.48 It does not matter whether the citizens of the nation are
willingly or unwillingly participating in the harm, their inability or unwillingness to reduce
47 Orend, Brian.“War.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta,Fall 2008.,2008.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/.
48 Walzer,Michael.Just and Unjust Wars. New York; Basic Books,1977.Print., 239

14. Stitt14
pollution output has at the best made them ineffective participants of a regime worthy of
overthrow or, at worst willing accomplices. As is the case in modern warfare, we should not,
however, hold the citizenry responsible for the regime at hand. The intervening organization,
therefore, will be for justified regime change and not punishment of the nation as a whole. This
is accepted practice in modern warfare as witnessed in that of the Nuremberg trials of World War
II and the ongoing investigations of the International Criminal Court.
Our jus ad bellum should be obvious in this case: The right to save the world, as it can be
so easily stated from time to time. The jus in bello, on the other hand may not be so obvious.
Modern warfare provides for a level of escalation in combat never imagined by scholars such as
St. Thomas or Augustine. If the primary goal of warfare is to cripple the ability of a nation to
produce greenhouse gases, the first objective will be targets of the offenders themselves. With
modern drones and submarines, the ability to precisely(as possibly can be precise) hit an
aggressive target is unsurpassed. Civilians can be notified of pending attacks, if plausible, and
strategic targets of interest wiped out with minimal casualty. One would hope the use of such
force would permit a nation from requiring a change of regime after witnessing the destruction of
infrastructure, but if escalation is required it is justified.
Jus post bellum, on the other hand, may be the trickiest part of a war engaged against
Climate Change. It is not acceptable to leave the infrastructure of a conquered nation in
crumbles, nor should it be acceptable. The intervening authority is morally required to assist in
the rebuilding of infrastructure and ensure a stable economy is in place. This is, quite obviously,
an expensive endeavor and would most likely stop the majority of nations from attacking to
reduce Climate Change on their own. Not only is rebuilding by the international community a
moral imperative, it makes quantitative sense; without the help of other nations, the prior polluter

15. Stitt15
nation would be on track to just rebuild as cheaply as possible which would be using fossil fuels
once again.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been shown that Climate Change is a clear and present danger to the
world and to the security of nations. If all else fails in diplomacy, a nation or an amalgamation of
allies is justified in changing the course of polluting nations by force. This can be done within
the current confines of theories on Just War.
The cause and effects of climate change have been known as have the solutions to the
problem. It is realized that the solution requires an international effort due to it being a tragedy of
the commons. In regards to the tragedy of the commons and that it has been shown climate
change is a violation of human rights, the international community has an obligation to respond.
Egregious offenses toward the climate are offenses to human rights and therefore must be
classified as crimes against humanity. If a state willfully ignores the crimes against humanity of
further producing climate change, the international community has a responsibility to protect.
Although, in this paper the focus was on military intervention, it should be pointed out
that is not the first or ideal option. The international community has many tools available to them
under international law and responsibility to protect to mitigate climate damage done by one or
more actors. Military intervention should be a last resort, but if it comes to that last resort, it is
entirely justified under international law and established philosophical work in Just War Theory.

16. Stitt16
Allison, Ian. The Copenhagen Diagnosis. Oxford: Elsevier, 2011. Print
Background Information on the Right To Protect. United Nations. Accessed November 12, 2014.
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml.
Climate Change 2013 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed
November 20, 2014. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf.
Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Accessed November 20, 2014. http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-
for-policymakers_approved.pdf.
Climate Change and Human Rights A Rough Guide. International Council on Human Rights, 2008.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/Submissions/136_summary.pdf.
Climate Wrongs and Human Rights. Oxfam International. Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/climatechange/submissions/oxfam_international.pdf.
Dessler, Andrew Emory. The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate.
2nd ed. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” American Association for the Advancement of
Science 162, no. 3859 (December 13, 1968): 1243–48.
Karl, Thomas R., and Kevin E. Trenberth. “Modem Global Climate Change.” Science 302, no. 5651
(December 5, 2003): 1719–23.
Orend, Brian. “War.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall
2008., 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/.
Milinski, Manfred, Dirk Semmann, and Hans-Jurgen Krambeck. “Reputation Helps Solve the
‘Tragedy of the Commons.’” Nature 415, no. 6870 (January 24, 2002): 424–26.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/415424a.
Orend, Brian. “War.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Fall
2008., 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/.
Posner, Eric A., and Weisbach, David. Climate Change Justice. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton
University Press, 2010. Accessed November 20, 2014. ProQuest ebrary.
Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1999. Print
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2014.
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm.
Schlesinger, William H. “Climate Change.” Interpretation 65, no. 4 (October 2011): 378–90,340.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed November 19, 2014.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars. New York; Basic Books, 1977. Print
“Writing Inspiration: Advice from Ira Glass - Writer’s Circle.” Accessed November 20, 2014.
http://writerscircle.com/2013/08/writing-inspiration-advice-from-ira-glass.html.