•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Geoengineering has emerged as a controversial climate technology involving large-scale interventions such as cloud seeding, weather modification, and unregulated carbon capture. While these practices are promoted as solutions to climate change, they also generate significant ecological risks that remain largely unaddressed within criminal law frameworks. This article examines the absence of explicit criminal liability for geoengineering-related harms and explores how comparative legal experiences can inform future penal reform. This research uses normative research methods with several approaches, including comparative, conceptual, and futuristic approaches. The collected legal materials are analysed qualitatively, and content analysis is employed to classify and interpret relevant norms, policies, and doctrines. Through a comparative analysis of selected jurisdictions, the study demonstrates that most countries rely on administrative regulation, precautionary principles, or sectoral liability mechanisms, while avoiding the criminalization of geoengineering risks. This regulatory pattern reveals a global normative gap, as existing legal regimes focus primarily on actual environmental damage rather than anticipatory or risk-based harm arising from experimental climate technologies. The article argues that geoengineering activities with high ecological uncertainty should be reconceptualized as potential environmental crimes, particularly when conducted without adequate oversight or accountability. By drawing comparative lessons, this study proposes tintegratingrisk-based criminal liability into future penal reform ao strengthen ecological protection and align criminal law with the emerging challenges posed by climate engineering.

References

1. Buck, HJ. After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration. Verso, 2019.
2. Burger, M and J Gundlach. ``Research governance.'' In Climate Engineering and the Law: Regulation and Liability for Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal, edited by Michael B. Gerrard and Tracy Hester, 269–323. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
3. Burns, Wil, D Dana, and SJ Nicholson, eds. Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance. Springer Cham, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9.
4. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The Regulation of Geoengineering. Fifth Report of Session 2009–10, HC 221. London: The Stationery Office, 2010.
5. Kiss, Alexandre, and D Shelton. ``Strict liability in international environmental law.'' In Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes, edited by Tafsir Malick Ndiaye and Rüdiger Wolfrum. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004161566.i-0.183.
6. Mayer, B. The International Law on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2018. doi:10.1017/9781108304368.
7. Oomen, J. Imagining Climate Engineering: Dreaming of the Designer Climate. 1st ed. Routledge, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043553.
8. Reynolds, JL. The Governance of Solar Geoengineering: Managing Climate Change in the Anthropocene. Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676790.
9. Smith, SL and I Sahramäki, eds. Research Handbook on Environmental Crimes and Criminal Enforcement. Edward Elgar, 2024.
10. S\o rensen, MP, and A Christiansen. Ulrich Beck: An Introduction to the Theory of Second Modernity and the Risk Society. Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107928.
11. White, R, and D Heckenberg. Green Criminology: An Introduction to the Study of Environmental Harm. 1st ed. Routledge, 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096109.
Other Documents

12. Adelman, S. ``Geoengineering: Rights, risks and ethics.'' Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 8, no. 1 (2017): 119–38. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2017.01.06.
13. Admass, WS, YY Munaye, and AA Diro. ``Cyber security: State of the art, challenges and future directions.'' Cyber Security and Applications 2 (2024): 100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csa.2023.100031.
14. Anisimova, H, V Haltsova, O Volodina, K Orobets, and A Osadcha. ``Criminal law protection as a component of environmental security: A modern dimension.'' Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 80, no. 4 (2024): 127–39. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.80.4.37791.
15. Bellamy, R, J Chilvers, NE Vaughan, and TM. Lenton. ``A review of climate geoengineering appraisals.'' WIREs Climate Change 3, no. 6 (2012): 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.197.
16. Bodle, R. ``Geoengineering and international law: The search for common legal ground.'' Tulsa Law Review 46, no. 2 (2010): 305-322.
17. Bozbayindir, AE. ``The advent of preventive criminal law: An erosion of the traditional criminal law?'' Criminal Law Forum 29, no. 1 (2018): 25–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-017-9322-y.
18. Brent, K, J McGee, and A Maguire. ``Does the `No-Harm' rule have a role in preventing transboundary harm and harm to the global atmospheric commons from geoengineering?'' Climate Law 5, no. 1 (2015): 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00501007.
19. Carabajal, MI, MF Santi, CR Garat, et al. ``No governance is governance: Mapping solar geoengineering discussions in Latin America & The Caribbean.'' European Journal of Risk Regulation, July 14, 2025, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.10025.
20. Corner, A, and N Pidgeon. ``Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications.'' Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 52, no. 1 (2010): 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150903479563.
21. Craik, N, J Blackstock, and AM Hubert. ``Regulating geoengineering research through domestic environmental protection frameworks: Reflections on the recent canadian ocean fertilization case.'' Carbon & Climate Law Review 7, no. 2 (2013): 117–124. https://doi.org/10.21552/CCLR/2013/2/253.
22. Darbra, RM, E Eljarrat, and D Barceló. ``How to measure uncertainties in environmental risk assessment.'' TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 27, no. 4 (2008): 377–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2008.02.005.
23. Davies, G, and J Vinders. ``Geoengineering, the precautionary principle, and the search for climate safety.'' European Journal of Risk Regulation, March 14, 2025, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.14.
24. Dewi, E, BP Nunna, and M Shafira. ``Corporate crimes and penal reform in Indonesia: Evaluating the efficacy of the criminal code.'' Jambe Law Journal 8, no. 1 (2025): 287–313. https://doi.org/10.22437/home.v8i1.525.
25. Feinberg, J. ``The expressive function of punishment.'' The Monist 49, no. 3 (1965): 397–423. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist196549326.
26. Fernando, ZJ, and F Arifin, MA Sunggara, and F Kusumah. ``Transnational environmental crime in the context of international criminal law and victim-centered environmental justice.'' Lampung Journal of International Law 7, no. 1 (2025): 15–30. https://doi.org/10.25041/lajil.v7i1.4338.
27. Gardiner, S, and C McKinnon. ``The justice and legitimacy of geoengineering.'' Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23, no. 5 (2020): 557–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1693157.
28. Greenbaum, D. ``Beyond the silver bullet: How geoengineering narratives shape climate policy and public complacency.'' Preprint, SSRN, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5597450.
29. Horder, J. ``Criminal law: Between determinism, liberalism, and criminal justice.'' Current Legal Problems 49, no. 1 (1996): 159–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/49.1.159.
30. Horton, JB, K Brent, D Zhen, et al. ``Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: A comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States.'' Climatic Change 176, no. 4 (2023): 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1.
31. Huttunen, S, E Skytén, and M Hildén. ``Emerging policy perspectives on geoengineering: An international comparison.'' The Anthropocene Review 2, no. 1 (2015): 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614557958.
32. Jinnah, S, S Talati, L Bedsworth, et al. ``Do small outdoor geoengineering experiments require governance?'' Science 385, no. 6709 (2024): 600–603. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ADN2853;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER.
33. Jinnah, S, S Nicholson, and J Flegal. ``Toward legitimate governance of solar geoengineering research: A role for sub-state actors.'' Ethics, Policy & Environment 21, no. 3 (2018): 362–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562526.
34. Kerryn Brent, J McGee, and J Mcdonald. ``The governance of geoengineering: An emerging challenge for international and domestic legal systems?'' Journal of Law, Information and Science 24, no. 1 (2015).
35. Knust, N. ```Eco-com-b: Environmental crimes'—Steps towards a more holistic system of environmental crime control.'' International Criminal Law Review 25, no. 2–3 (2025): 493–523. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10224.
36. MacMartin, DG, and B Kravitz. ``Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 4 (2019): 1089–94. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811022116.
37. McDonald, M. ``Geoengineering, climate change and ecological security.'' Environmental Politics 32, no. 4 (2023): 565–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2113606.
38. McLaren, DP. ``Reconstructing risk–risk analysis to support effective governance of high-risk climate interventions.'' European Journal of Risk Regulation, July 3, 2025, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.10019.
39. Modenese, A, L Korpinen, and F Gobba. ``Solar radiation exposure and outdoor work: An underestimated occupational risk.'' International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 10 (2018): 2063. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102063.
40. Kharytonov, O, Sergiy, RS Orlovskyi, V Olha, TV Kurman, and OO Maslova. ``Criminal legal protection of the environment: national realities and international standards.'' European Energy and Environmental Law Review 32, no. 6 (2023): 283–92. https://doi.org/10.54648/EELR2023018.
41. Penner, JE, C Zhou, and L. Xiaohong ``Can cirrus cloud seeding be used for geoengineering? Cirrus cloud seeding.'' Geophysical Research Letters 42, no. 20 (2015): 8775–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065992.
42. Poumadère, Ma, R Bertoldo, and J Samadi. ``Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: Nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering.'' WIREs Climate Change 2, no. 5 (2011): 712–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.134.
43. Sandin, P. ``Dimensions of the precautionary principle.'' Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 5, no. 5 (1999): 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039991289185.
44. Sargoni, J. ``The best of both worlds: Maximising the legitimacy of the EU's regulation of geoengineering research.'' European Journal of Risk Regulation 7, no. 1 (2016): 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005420.
45. Shetty, AJ, and M Saxena. ``Harm principle in green criminology: Environmental harm and human risk matrix.'' Frontiers in Climate 7 (October 2025): 1602227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2025.1602227.
46. Simon, M, J McDonald, and K Brent. ``Transboundary implications of China's weather modification programme.'' Transnational Environmental Law 12, no. 3 (2023): 594–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102523000146.
47. Sovacool, BK, CM. Baum, and L Sean ``Risk–risk governance in a low-carbon future: Exploring institutional, technological, and behavioral tradeoffs in climate geoengineering pathways.'' Risk Analysis 43, no. 4 (2023): 838–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13932.
48. Stanton-Ife, J. ``What is the harm principle for?'' Criminal Law and Philosophy 10, no. 2 (2016): 329–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9311-8.
49. Stewart, H. ``The limits of the harm principle.'' Criminal Law and Philosophy 4, no. 1 (2010): 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-009-9082-9.
50. Teacher of the Department of Private Law, Specialized Branch of Tashkent State University of Law, Uzbekistan, and Elbek Eshmurodov. ``Issues of criminal liability for violation of the requirements of the law on ecology and the environment.'' The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology 02, no. 11 (2020): 93–98. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume02Issue11-15.
51. Wennersten, R, Q Sun, and H Li. ``The future potential for carbon capture and storage in climate change mitigation – an overview from perspectives of technology, economy and risk.'' Journal of Cleaner Production 103 (September 2015): 724–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.023.
52. Wibeck, V, A Hansson, and J Anshelm. ``Questioning the technological fix to climate change – lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden.'' Energy Research & Social Science 7 (May 2015): 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001.
53. Wieding, J, J Stubenrauch, and F Ekardt. ``Human rights and precautionary principle: Limits to geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC scenarios.'' Sustainability 12, no. 21 (2020): 8858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858.

Download

Share

COinS