CHR-NI-2016-0001 Statement of Resource Person, Dr Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh 5 quickly and cheaply. A Climate Compensation Act—such as that proposed—could protect the rights of the victims of climate change while providing much-needed clarity to the companies and entities that contributed most to the harm. The case for a Climate Compensation Act is based on two important concepts. Firstly, it has never been legal to knowingly destroy property, lives, and, indeed, entire nations—either in international law or national law. Secondly, a country has legal authority over harm that occurs within its borders, even if the causes of that harm are global. Enacting a new law to change the rules of liability and compensation to ensure that the law achieves (in the view of the legislator) a more just, equitable or efficient result is not new. Legislation passed in the 1990s in relation to tobacco companies provides a valuable point of reference. Such legislation, passed in Florida and certain Canadian provinces, sought to change the rules for liability in lawsuits against tobacco companies. The Tobacco Damages Act 1997 passed by British Columbia, for instance, “allowed the government to recover damages on behalf of the health care system, allowed the award of damages where a defendant’s actions had increased the risk of an outcome, and dealt with the apportionment of liability between parties”. 24 The ability of Canada’s provinces to enact this type of legislation, notwithstanding the impacts of such legislation on international companies, was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.25 Moreover, some jurisdictions have recently passed legislation related to climate-related litigation. Among these is Kenya’s 2016 Climate Change Act, which allows citizens to sue private and public entities that frustrate efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change.26 Before enacting a Climate Compensation Act, it is necessary to consider the political and economic consequences that might arise as a result, including the consequences for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. These will vary considerably from country to country. The Philippines, however, would need to seriously consider the potential implications on its economy and the international pressure it might come under were it to seek climate damages from major foreignbased fossil fuel corporations. At the same time, it must be born in mind that the right to a remedy is an inalienable human right of all Filipinos and that the Philippines has undertaken international obligations to ensure this right. b. Legal basis for a Climate Compensation Act A Climate Compensation Act raises various complicated legal questions. As will be shown below, however, these can be addressed with reference to existing and wellestablished legal principles. 24 A Gage and M Byers, Payback Time: What the internalization of climate litigation could mean for Canadian fossil fuel companies (Vancouver, Canada, West Coast Environmental Law 2014) 35. 25 Imperial Tobacco v BC, 2005 SCC 49. See also the discussion regarding Singapore’s 2014 Transboundary Haze Pollution Act of A Gage and M Wewerinke, Taking Climate Justice into our Own Hands: A Model Climate Compensation Act (December 2015), at 9 (appended). 26 Climate Change Act (Kenya), No 11 of 2016, available at http://kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid=No.%2011%20of%202016 accessed 2 December 2018.