Geoengineering and the Law: Preparing Legal Frameworks for Intentional Climate Interventions

Introduction

It is the accelerating impacts that climate change is creating, which has stimulated the interest of geoengineering in a growing way-these are the deliberate and usually large-scale, technological interventions meant to counter global warming. There are techniques such as solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal; although these provide solutions, they also bring with them unprecedented legal and ethical dilemmas. Unlike traditional climate mitigation strategies, geoengineering is active manipulation of Earth systems, rising several concerns from unintended consequences, governance, and accountability.

International environmental laws, as they currently stand, are not designed to regulate the deliberate human action of intentional climate intervention. The absence of clear legal frameworks creates risks of unilateral actions, transboundary disputes, and ecological harm. This article sets itself the task of understanding the multifaceted debate regarding geoengineering from a legal perspective, specifically concentrating on the three principal issues: liabilities for unintended consequences, transboundary harm in international law, and regulatory gaps within the governance of weather modification. By reviewing the relevant existing legal principles and suggesting necessary reform, the analysis underscores the urgency of structured legal frameworks for geoengineering before it becomes inevitable.

Liabilities in Geoengineering: Whose Head?

The determination of liability from adverse effects is one of the difficult areas of law regarding geoengineering. It might be safe to say, however, that geohazards differ from conventional pollutants, which tend to be localized and associated with a few identifiable actors. Sea stratospheric aerosol injection-the seemingly litmus test of SRM-may cool the planet but could cause disruption to monsoons, damage ozone layers, or create regional drought.

State Responsibility Under International Law

No significant damages to other nations must be caused by activities within their territory or exercise jurisdiction by the “No-Harm Principle” under international environmental law. This principle as part of the UNFCCC[1] and Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (1941)[2] can also be applied to geoengineering activities. Suppose a country conducts an SRM experiment, which harms other countries. The injured countries can claim reparation by invoking international courts. However, proving causation becomes the most difficult task, owing to the complex, systemic nature of climate interventions.

Private Actors Liability and Corporate Accountability

Another characteristic of most geoengineering projects is that they are largely undertaken by either private companies (enterprises that usually include technology corporations) or research institutes. Who is liable if a corporate entity resorts to ocean iron fertilization, a CDR technique, and, as a result of that CDR, causes widespread algal blooms that devastate marine ecosystems? In other tortious laws, proving negligence and direct harm is normally a must, rendering them rather inadequate in the present situation. Legal reforms may, therefore, need to be put in place to impose strict liability for geoengineering activities, probably like regimes governing nuclear energy or hazardous waste.

Insurance and Risk Sharing Mechanisms

Considering the ramifications of such an event, some scholars suggest geoengineering liability funds that would be similar to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC)[3]. The definition of these channels is financial pools composed of states or corporations without needing to mention who commits an act of geoengineering in compensation for those injured by the incident. Alternatively, mandatory insurance schemes could guarantee that entities undertaking these climactic interventions shall bear the financial risks of their actions.

Clear liability frameworks will be missing without which there would not only be Satellite/Bahamas protracted litigations but also failure of accountability, neither of which would so much deter responsible research as they would enable reckless experimentation.

Transboundary Harm Without Limits in International Law

Geoengineering does not observe political borders: a unilateral project in one country could cause droughts, floods, or shortages of food thousands of miles down the track. This raises important issues concerned with sovereignty, consent, and indeed conflict under international law.

1. Violation of State Sovereignty

Principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources asserted that nations have exclusive rights in their environment. One nation’s activities might interfere with another’s environment, so one principle of the Permanent Sovereignty can be violated by geoengineering activity, for example, if China undertook large-scale cloud seeding to break this drought, then India would find itself diminished in rainfall as a result of that, and thus could India claim violation of its sovereignty?

Precedents such as the Trail Smelter Case (where Canada was held liable for cross-border pollution of a smelter) suggest that these can be held accountable for the harm caused by geoengineering. However, unlike industrial pollution, climate interventions can include multiple actors with diffused effects, making legal attribution very difficult.

2. The ENMOD’s Convention on the Environment

The ENMOD Treaty (1977)[4], which bans hostile environmental modification, such as weather warfare, does not explicitly cover the attempts to mitigate climate change. Some argue that large-scale geogeoregineering could be found under ENMOD if it imposes harms on other states, as there are no enforcement mechanisms with the treaty. Expanding ENMOD to include non-military geoengineering might then provide a legal basis for the regulation of risky experiments.

3. Conflict with Article of the Paris Agreement

For an annual reduction in emissions, the Paris Agreement (2015)[5] is based. In one instance, if a country were to employ SRM to achieve its climate-based targets whilst maintaining high levels of fossil fuel use within its country, then such action possibly undermines the mitigation efforts in the world. As geoengineering substitutes for decarbonization and thereby infringes the spirit of the Agreement as cooperative climate action, legal conflicts may be observed.

It is thus likely that a new international treaty-such as a Geoengineering Non-Proliferation Agreement-will eventually be essential to set rules for equitable, transparent, and consensual climate interventions.

Regulatory Gaps in Weather Modification Governance

While small-scale weather modification[6] such as cloud seeding has been going on for decades, most countries have little regulation in place. Geoengineering poses an even greater risk, but the regulatory instruments remain scattered.

1. Weak Domestic Regulations

Few countries have adopted specific laws on geoengineering:

• United States: The Weather Modification Reporting Act (1972) requires only the reporting of cloud-seeding activities and not of an approval process.
• European Union: The EU raised a moratorium on SRM but has not actually laid down binding regulations.
• China: Actively pursues weather modification without much international governance.

Without domestic laws, anyone-whether a private firm or a government-would deploy geoengineering technology without due consideration of possible risks.

2. Absence of Global Governance

All over the world, no establishment for the regulation of geoengineering is operational. Though ocean fertilization is controlled under the London Convention (2008)[7], the implementation of this measure remains far too weak. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[8] discusses geoengineering-but does not regulate it. The proposal for a UN-based Geoengineering Governance Council is stuck in the mire of political disagreement.

3. Ethical Considerations and Equity

Geoengineering might lead to further inequity:

• The least developed countries that have contributed least to global warming may bear the brunt of an unintended side effect.
• Conversely, indigenous and local communities might be disrupted in their relationship with ecosystems on which they depend without any kind of consent.

In law, provisions must be made for decision-making processes that are representative and inclusive, one where no large-scale intervention could proceed without the consensus of the whole world.

Conclusion: An Urgent Need for a Legal Framework

Geoengineering emerges as a controversial-yet-considerable solution to curb global warming as the planet is more and more bracing for several climate atrocities. It could alter the planetary systems irrevocably, therefore requiring immediate legal backing. There is no specific governing framework yet in place to control the “geoengineering event.” Not having so bring large differences between risks—ranging from transboundary environmental harm, geopolitical conflicts, and unintended ecological disruptions in the world by states or corporations.

Reference(S):

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Geneva: IPCC, 2018.
• Proelss, Alexander, and Kerstin Güssow. “International Environmental Law and Geoengineering: Legal Perspectives on Climate Engineering.” Carbon & Climate Law Review 21 (2010): 101-108.
• Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1941).
• United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107.
• United Nations. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), May 18, 1977, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151.

[1] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107.

[2] Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1941).

[3] International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC), available at: https://iopcfunds.org/ (last accessed June 26, 2025).

[4] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), May 18, 1977, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151.

[5] Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.

[6] Weather Modification Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 330–330e (1972).

[7] London Convention and Protocol: 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, Nov. 7, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 1 (1997).

[8] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, IPCC (2018).