Does ICAO’s climate change mitigation policy based on international agreements reflect global environmental justice?

This study aims to answer the question, does ICAO’s mitigation policy on climate change based on international agreements reflect global environmental justice? This study adopts a qualitative research design through the process of descriptive analysis. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) mitigation policies on climate change are one of ICAO’s efforts in achieving global environmental justice. The slogan “No Country Left Behind” is an ICAO initiative to ensure better implementation of SARPs can be harmonized globally so that all countries gain access to socioeconomic benefits resulting from safe and reliable air transportation. However, there is skepticism about ICAO global governance because, throughout the years, the policies introduced by ICAO are considered to be unsuccessful in carrying out The Kyoto Protocol’s mandates. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether the ICAO policy already reflects global environmental justice since its dimensions play an important role in global governance effectiveness. Data were collected by performing literature analysis and interviewing: (1) The ICAO Headquarters representative in Montreal via email; (2) The Indonesian government officer responsible for ICAO environmental policy; and (3) An expert on air and space law. The data were analyzed using the environmental justice dimensions of David Schlosberg, namely the distribution of environmental risks, recognition, and participation. The result shows that ICAO’s mitigation policy on climate change still needs to be improved because it does not fully reflect environmental justice dimensions. The limited features and scope of the CORSIA scheme, the unequal aviation technology advancements, and the supply of sustainable aviation fuels are the three major problems identified when it comes to the related dimensions of environmental risk distribution. The representation of ICAO-CAEP (Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection) membership does not reflect the dimensions of recognition and participation because are more favorable toward developed countries. ICAO was also criticized because the policy-making process and negotiation are more subservient to the interest of the industry.