CHR-NI-2016-0001 Statement of Resource Person, Dr Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh 9 injury.35 The benefit of adopting the existing law as it relates to causation however is that it ensures a balance between the rights of plaintiffs and defendants at the procedural level, and thereby ensures the credibility of the Act. Moreover, scientific evidence is increasingly able to make at least statistical links between climate change and particular types of weather events and other impacts—making it possible to establish causation between certain activities and harm suffered. F. Remedies and enforcement: what types of orders for damages or other remedies might a court make, and how can these orders be enforced? Any Climate Compensation Act must address the types of orders that the court may give in climate damages litigation. In this regard, the Model Climate Compensation Act provides for both the awarding of damages for climate-related harm, along with other remedies that the court may order. Among the options available for a court is an order for compensation to be paid to a Climate Compensation Fund established by the Act—for instance where the order relates to adaptation-related expenses that have not yet been incurred. Given that the damage caused by climate change is caused by various actors, the Model Climate Compensation Act is also concerned with how damages will be apportioned between multiple possible defendants. Rather than adopting a ‘joint and several liability’ approach—which may result in one major emitter being held responsible for the full costs of climate change—it adopts a ‘proportional contribution’ approach. This means that a company which is responsible for 2% of GHG emissions should be responsible for 2% of the damages caused by climate change. Where there is an issue of ‘overlapping responsibilities’ between major emitters, both can be jointly and severally liable for these emissions (and only such emissions). For a Climate Compensation Act to have ‘teeth’, it is necessary that any orders made under it are enforceable. Assuming that the order is made against a fossil fuel company, this will likely require international enforcement, i.e. in the country where the company is based. In many countries around the world, once a judgment for damages has been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, it is possible to have it recognized as a debt and enforced. While there are exceptions (for instance, where the order is for enforcement for foreign public law or is against public policy), the aim of the Model Climate Compensation Act would be that such orders made under it can be enforced in foreign jurisdictions. III. Conclusion International human rights law requires that States’ legislative and policy frameworks are designed to provide adequate and effective remedies for human rights violations. In light of the massive human rights consequences of climate change already experienced in the Philippines, the Philippines should consider taking legislative measures to ensure access to redress for human rights violations 35 Climate Change Act (Kenya), No. 11 of 2016, available http://kenyalaw.org/lex/actview.xql?actid=No.%2011%20of%202016 accessed 2 December 2018. at