National Security Policy

Professor Mark Nevitt: Key Takeaways From the Glasgow Climate Pact

(Lawfare | Nov. 17, 2021) Nearly 200 nations signed the Glasgow Climate Pact on Nov. 13. Acknowledging the increasingly strong connection between climate change and its role as a threat accelerant, the pact explicitly states that climate change is a “social, economic and environmental threat.” It also called on world leaders to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change.”

Climate change is the ultimate environmental and security destabilizer, exacerbating extreme weather, drought, wildfires, and sea level rise. Climate change is already destabilizing many parts of the world. This new climate-security reality was brought home just last month in the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate and other U.S. climate-security reports. Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity is now inextricably linked to broader security concerns. 

The Glasgow Climate Pact consists of 94 paragraphs and eight thematic subparts. In what follows, I highlight the key takeaways, some surprises, and what to look for in the future. 

  • The Rise of “Mitigation Ambition.” Since the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated in 1992, international negotiators have focused on mitigation—reducing each nation’s GHG emissions pumped into the common atmosphere. The Glasgow Climate Pact provides a shot in the arm to global mitigation efforts. Paragraph 29 accelerates the timeline for nations to strengthen their mitigation plans—known as nationally determined contributions—by the end of 2022. The Paris Agreement envisioned that these updates would take place every five years, so this expedited timeline was hailed as a key Glasgow achievement. Still, while plans are important, implementation and execution will determine future climate progress. All eyes will be on COP27 in Egypt next year to examine these plans and assess what actions have been taken since Glasgow.
  • The Mission to “Keep 1.5 Alive” Is on Life Support. The 2015 Paris Agreement sought to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and keep the global temperature increase “well below” 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Exceeding this threshold leads to irreversible, catastrophic harm. The National Intelligence Estimate stated that the world is well off-track to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. While the Glasgow Climate Pact keeps the 1.5 goal alive, it is hanging by a thread. To have a chance of meeting this 1.5 goal, the world has just 98 months to cut worldwide GHG emissions in half. That’s not impossible, but it will require transformational action this decade …

Read the full article.

 

Professor Mark Nevitt Discusses Climate Change and National Security on Lawfare Live

A Discussion on Recent Climate Security Reports

(Lawfare Live | Oct. 28, 2021) Last week, the Department of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security and National Security Council each released their own reports addressing the issue of climate change as a national security threat. To unpack what’s in the reports and what it all means, Natalie Orpett sat down on Lawfare Live with Mark Nevitt, associate professor of law at Syracuse University College of Law, and Erin Sikorsky, director of the Center for Climate and Security and director of the International Military Council on Climate and Security. 

Lawfare recently published Professor Nevitt’s article on the topic: “What You Need to Know About the New Climate Security Reports.”

Listen on Apple Podcasts.

 

Professor Mark Nevitt: What You Need to Know About the New Climate Security Reports

(Lawfare | Oct. 26, 2021) Last week, the Department of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security and National Security Council released four distinct reports on the effects of climate change on national security.

These reports were issued pursuant to requirements established in two executive orders issued by President Biden earlier this year: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration. These four reports build off the Pentagon’s recent Climate Adaptation Plan and the Department of Homeland Security’s Climate Action Plan, issued in September and October, respectively. Read in conjunction with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report, the four reports present a full, albeit bleak, picture of a climate-transformed world.

These reports—particularly the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—offer a clear-eyed analysis of the climate threats facing the nation and world. The NIE is produced by the National Intelligence Council, the most senior intelligence analysts with deep expertise on future threats facing the U.S. and the rest of the world. It should be mandatory reading for all security professionals. It is also a first-of-its-kind document, summarizing the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community in a candid, forthright manner.

Several broad climatic themes emerge from these reports. I’ve highlighted the following toplines below, with a particular focus on the NIE’s blunt analysis of the scope and scale of the climate crisis.

The World Is Far Off Track to Meet the Paris Climate Accord’s Goals

The NIE reaffirms what climate scientists have already warned: The world is off track to meet the Paris climate accord’s goals of keeping the Earth’s temperature from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms. Worse, estimates show that temperatures are expected to increase 2.0 degrees Celsius by midcentury. This is the NIE’s key takeaway. 

The Paris climate agreement binds 190 nations to a process that relies heavily on voluntary reporting without a clear, legally enforceable mechanism. The agreement sets a goal of “limit[ing] the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels” and “holding the increase in global temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius.” Exceeding this threshold will lead to catastrophic, irreversible harm. Unfortunately, the NIE notes, “current policies and pledges are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals.” Several key judgments flow from the NIE’s assessment that the world is poised to blast through these temperature thresholds. For example, with a 2.0 degree rise, 99 percent of coral reefs will suffer long-term degradation. This eliminates an entire ecosystem serving 500 million people who rely on coral reefs for economic and food security. And with a 2.0 degree rise, envision an ice-free Arctic summer every five years, increasing competition over resource and transit route access. 

The NIE’s blunt assessment provides sobering context for the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, which now takes on an increased importance. How the NIE’s assessment will shape climate negotiations at Glasgow remains to be seen, but it is now impossible to deny the destructive climate emissions trajectory …

Read the full article.

ABA Podcast with the Hon. James E. Baker Available (Parts 1 and 2)

The Centaur’s Dilemma with Judge James Baker (Part 1)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not a single piece of hardware or software, but rather a constellation of technologies. This week, hosts Elisa and Yvette are joined by James Baker, an expert in national security law and process, to discuss his recent book, The Centaur’s Dilemma: National Security Law for the Coming AI Revolution. Together, they break down the risks and benefits of AI application. Will AI increase the likelihood of conflict? And how can we reap the benefits of AI for broader national security purposes without losing control of the consequences?

The Centaur’s Dilemma with Judge James Baker (Part 2)

In Part 2 of their discussion on the risks and benefits of AI in national security, hosts Elisa and Yvette chat with James Baker about the future of AI policy. What is the appropriate level of human control in different AI contexts? Where are we with autonomous weapons applications? And what critical AI conversations do lawyers and policy makers need right now? James Baker covers all this and more in his recent book, The Centaur’s Dilemma: National Security Law for the Coming AI Revolution.

The Centaur’s Dilemma

“What We’ve Learned in the Two Decades Since 9/11”: Syracuse Led Podcast and JNSLP Special Issue

In anticipation of the 20th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Institute for Security Policy and Law asked, How could we honor the memory of 9/11 and contribute to a greater good?

SPL Director the Hon. James E. Baker settled on a series of lessons-learned essays to be published in the Journal of National Security Law and Policy, drafted to inform the future rather than to adjudicate the past.

To lead this project, Baker asked Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence Matt Kronisch, who has joined SPL for 2021-2022 on secondment from the US Department of Homeland Security.

“Matt compiled a remarkable line-up of 20 authors, whose essays are clear, short, direct, and geared toward policy and legal implementation,” says Judge Baker. “They also represent a cross-section of practitioners and thought leaders.”

To announce the Special 9/11 Edition of JNSLP, SPL hosted a 9/11 Remembrance Webinar/Podcast in coordination with the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security with ABA President Reggie Tucker, followed by a conversation with Amb. Anne Patterson, former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, and Professor Sahar Aziz.

Professor Mark Nevitt Publishes “Is Climate Change a Threat to International Peace and Security?”

“Is Climate Change a Threat to International Peace and Security?” Michigan Journal of International Law, 42 (2021).

The climate-security century is here, writes Professor Mark Nevitt. Both the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA) recently sounded the alarm on climate change’s “super-wicked” and destabilizing security impacts.

Scientists and security professionals alike reaffirm what we are witnessing with our own eyes: The earth is warming at a rapid rate; climate change affects international peace and security in complex ways; and the window for international climate action is slamming shut.

 

Climate Change & National Security

Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law’s research on climate change and national security draws on the work of Professor Mark Nevitt, whose scholarship has appeared in the Journal of National Security Law and Policy, Washington University Law Review, Boston College Law Review, Georgia Law Review, Cardozo Law Review, Harvard Environmental Law Review, and elsewhere.

Sub-topics include emergency powers, environmental law, geopolitics, international security, managed retreat, and military law and policy.

Selected Articles

“The Climate-Security Century: Three Climate Hotspots.” Fletcher Security Review, 8 (2021)

“Is Climate Change a National Emergency?” UC Davis Law Review, 55 (forthcoming 2021)

“Is Climate Change a Threat to International Peace and Security?” Michigan Journal of International Law (forthcoming 2021)

“The Remaking of the Supreme Court: Implications for Climate Change Litigation.” Cardozo Law Review, 42

“On Environmental Law, Climate Change, and National Security.” Harvard Environmental Law Review, 44.

“Could Official Climate Denial Revive the Common Law as a Regulatory Backstop?” Washington University Law Review, 96 (2018). (With Robert V. Percival.)

“Polar Opposites: Assessing Environmental Law in the World’s Polar Regions.” Boston College Law Review, 59 (2018). (With Robert V. Percival.)

“The Commander in Chief’s Authority to Combat Climate Change.” Cardozo Law Review, 37 (2015).

Selected Blogs

Lawfare

Key Takeaways From the Glasgow Climate Pact | Nov. 17, 2021

What You Need to Know About the New Climate Security Reports | Oct. 26, 2021

Just Security

China, Climate Change, Credibility: Why It’s (Finally) Time for the US to Join the Law of the Sea Convention | Sept. 23, 2021

China, Climate Change, Credibility: Why It’s (Finally) Time for the US to Join the Law of the Sea Convention

NATO’s Renewed Focus on Climate Change & Security: What You Need to Know | June 2021

NATO’s Renewed Focus on Climate Change & Security: What You Need to Know

Is Climate Change a National Emergency? | February 2021

Is Climate Change a National Emergency?

Climate Change, National Security, & the New Commander-in-Chief | December 2020

Climate Change, National Security, & the New Commander-in-Chief

Wharton Climate Solutions

As We Adapt to Climate Change, Legal Doctrine Must Also Adapt | July 2019

As We Adapt to Climate Change, Legal Doctrine Must Also Adapt

Listen to National Security Professionals on Climate Change | June 2019

Listen to National Security Professionals on Climate Change’s Risks

Selected Podcasts

A Discussion on Recent Climate Security Reports | Lawfare Live! (Oct. 29, 2021)

Climate Security and the Changing Landscape of Threat Part 1 | ABA National Security Law Today Podcast (2019)

Climate Security and the Changing Landscape of Threat Part 2 | ABA National Security Law Today Podcast (2019)

Where Does the Defense Department Really Stand on Climate? | Kleinman Center for Energy Policy (2019)

The Climate Challenge: Professor Mark Nevitt Interviewed by Yale Climate Connections

Revitalized U.S. urgency on climate change and national security

(Yale Climate Connections | May 7, 2021) “An urgent national security threat.” That’s the phrase U.S. Director of National intelligence Avril Haines used in describing climate change at the White House Climate Summit on Earth Day a few weeks ago.

It’s the kind of language that national security interests have applied previously, but not since the Trump administration took office on January 20, 2017, and soon put the kibosh on such talk. Conversations about climate change and national security continued under the Trump presidency, but not so much in the open, and certainly not with the imprimatur of the Oval Office …

… While climate change and global security for some time have been a topic of policy deliberations, the Global Trends 2040 report brings climate change to the forefront more than any of its predecessors had done.

“It’s a pretty clear-eyed objective report,” [Professor Mark] Nevitt said. “There’s five different themes on the first few pages. And climate change is right there with the global challenges, right there with technology, disruption, disease, financial crisis.”

Sikorsky said the team putting together the report knew climate change would need to be emphasized more than in earlier years. The report, she said, is informed by data and models, and also through conversations with experts and qualitative research.

“The authors travel around the globe, and meet with people and talk to them about their experiences,” Sikorsky said. “And it’s impossible to have those conversations in a lot of the world without climate change being discussed as something that’s shaping people’s everyday lives already.”

Nevitt noted that he is pleased the report digs into areas like attribution science which is used to understand the role climate change plays in shaping weather events, and also explores the importance of feedback loops. “That’s sort of the cutting edge of climate science that’s being integrated into an intelligence document,” He said. “That shows me that there’s a real active engagement, it’s not passive.”

Nevitt’s only qualm? He is concerned the report may be overly optimistic about how much the international community can agree on a critical point: quickly reducing, and perhaps also eliminating, greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent exceeding 1.5°C of warming even earlier than the report expects …

Read the full story.

 

“A Specialized Society?” Professor Mark Nevitt Discusses Monitoring Military for Domestic Extremists in The Washington Post

The Pentagon wants to take a harder line on domestic extremism. How far can it go?

(The Washington Post | May 5, 2021) Pentagon officials are considering new restrictions on service members’ interactions with far-right groups, part of the military’s reckoning with extremism, but the measures could trigger legal challenges from critics who say they would violate First Amendment rights.

Under a review launched by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Defense Department officials are reexamining rules governing troops’ affiliations with anti-government and white supremacist movements, ties that currently are permissible in limited circumstances.

Austin, who has pledged zero tolerance for extremism, ordered the review after the events of Jan. 6, when rioters including a few dozen veterans — and a handful of current service members — stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the presidential election results …

… Mark Nevitt, a former Navy lawyer who teaches at the Syracuse University College of Law, pointed to other cases in which courts have characterized the military as a “specialized society separate from society.”

“Federal courts will likely provide a healthy dose of deference to the military if challenged, particularly if the military can link the new definition to the underlying military mission and good order and discipline,” he said …

Read the full article.

ABA Podcast: 1L Meghan Steenburgh Discusses National Security Concerns with Professor William C. Banks

Critical Issues in National Security Law

(ABA Law Student Podcast | April 20, 2021) In the daily onslaught of news from all corners of the globe, it is sometimes difficult to decipher the implications of current events within our own country.

From the pandemic, to cybersecurity, to international relationships, linking current events and national security interests to law helps us understand our country’s responses to the things we see in the media. ABA Law Student Podcast host 1L Meg Steenburgh talks with Professor William Banks of Syracuse University about the most critical national security issues facing our nation both at home and abroad, including China tensions, nuclear weapons concerns worldwide, the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, and more.

William C. Banks is a Syracuse University College of Law Board of Advisors Distinguished Professor and Emeritus Professor at the College of Law and the Maxwell School as Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs.

Listen to the podcast.