Recognising Limits of International Law in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) as Problem and Solution Associate Professor, Michael Eburn (ANU College of Law) Andrew Collins (Northumbria University Disaster and Development Network)

In this paper we argue: International law makes a significant contribution to DRR; but The focus for effective DRR governance must be on domestic laws and policies. We explore some limitations of international law – it is only part of the solution and remains part of the problem.

Academics and civil society Have a 'faith in and commitment to the promise of international law’. It’s easier to get ‘traction’ with the DRR community and to influence international law. But that faith must not be misplaced or the impact overstated.

State Sovereignty Is at the heart of international DRR law - consider: The Charter of the UN (1945); The International Relief Union (1927) - one of the main principles was respect for the territorial sovereignty of parties (Macalister-Smith, 1985).

United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 46/182 on Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the United Nations; Sendai Declaration; ILC’s Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of a Disaster.

Sovereignty can be limited – but is it? Human rights law gives DRR an international component (Nicaragua v United States of America [1986] ICJ Reports 14, 124–125). But the UNGA did not accept that ‘the responsibility to protect’ extended to failure

Is there a ‘will’ to extend the international reach Morgenthau (1940), Charney (1993) and Fidler (2005) argue that the interest of states align in keeping disaster management ‘essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state …’ (United Nations 1945, art. 2, para. 7)

Implications States appear unwilling to make binding int’l law in the area. Relevant law is ‘soft law’ (eg Sendai); Sovereignty remains a critical limit – it affects what states and others can do to require other states to take action.

International law Is top down. Can DRR law be ‘bottom up’? Focus on enforceable human rights law.

Consider the Grenfell tower fire There are international standards (International Building Code; Sendai). But who can enforce them? Local authorities only.

Human rights law Right to life? Right to housing? Could be enforced by residents. Compel action to rehouse those. Extend responsibility beyond the occupier/landlord/developer to the state.

Conclusion #1 The premise of the paper is that the commitment to state sovereignty limits the ability of states, NGOs and the international community to influence or compel states to implement effective DRR.

Conclusion #2 To the extent that making international law encourages discussion and agreement between states it is a useful contribution. A recognition of individual human rights could be a valuable contribution and would bring to the fore a rights based approach to DRR, as yet undeveloped within the nation state.

Conclusion #3 Focussing on local laws, policies and administrative arrangements will do the most to protect vulnerable populations and reduce the toll of disasters.

Thank you for your attention A. Prof. Michael Eburn Australian National University E: michael.eburn@anu.edu.au P: + 61 2 6125 6424 Prof. Andrew Collins Northumbria University E: andrew.collins@northumbria.ac.uk P: + 44 7786 073 531