Who has responsibility for addressing the security implications of climate change? States and the United Nations justify their existence on the promise of providing security. Yet, although the national and international security implications of climate change are increasingly acknowledged, incorporation of climate change in national security planning or institutional arrangements is far from universal, while debates in the UN Security Council about its role in addressing climate change have been characterized by contestation. This article examines key debates about the responsibilities these institutions have for providing security in the face of the threats posed by climate change, examining the extent to which these institutions accept responsibility for providing security in these contexts. Drawing on Toni Erskine’s notion of institutional moral agency, the article examines a 2017 inquiry into the national security implications of climate change in Australia, and the September 2021 UN Security Council debate on the international security implications of climate change. These two case studies explicitly focus on the question of institutional responsibility – of the Australian Government and the UN Security Council respectively – for addressing the threat of climate change. In both cases these institutions stop short of accepting responsibility for providing security in the face of climate change, with limited policy responses or institutionalization as the result. With the security implications of climate change increasingly apparent, and increasingly recognized by these (and other) actors, the failure to accept responsibility raises potentially significant questions about the legitimacy of these institutions themselves.

中文翻译：

---

接受责任？气候变化的制度和安全影响

谁有责任解决气候变化对安全的影响？各国和联合国以提供安全的承诺来证明其存在的合理性。然而，尽管气候变化对国家和国际安全的影响日益得到承认，但将气候变化纳入国家安全规划或制度安排的情况还远未普遍，而联合国安理会关于气候变化在应对气候变化中的作用的辩论的特点是：论争。本文探讨了有关这些机构在面临气候变化威胁时提供安全责任的主要争论，并探讨了这些机构在这些背景下承担提供安全责任的程度。本文借鉴托尼·厄斯金 (Toni Erskine) 的制度道德机构概念，探讨了 2017 年澳大利亚气候变化对国家安全影响的调查，以及 2021 年 9 月联合国安理会关于气候变化对国际安全影响的辩论。这两个案例研究明确关注澳大利亚政府和联合国安理会应对气候变化威胁的机构责任问题。在这两种情况下，这些机构都没有承担在气候变化面前提供安全的责任，其结果是政策反应或制度化有限。随着气候变化的安全影响日益明显，并越来越被这些（和其他）行为者认识到，不承担责任可能会引发对这些机构本身合法性的潜在重大质疑。