The literature on climate justice has primarily focused on distributing the benefits and burdens of climate change, particularly those related to the costs of mitigation and adaptation. As such, less attention has been paid to emerging political issues surrounding loss and damage caused by the failure of mitigation and adaptation. This paper aims to fill this gap through discussions on reparative justice, which is correlated with the concept of liability. Since the concept of liability has controversial implications in climate politics and theory, investigating reparative justice for climate damage must clarify how the concept of liability can reconcile with the normative theory of political responsibility. This paper begins with the question of how the distributive justice scheme fails to discuss climate damage, by arguing that the scheme does not necessarily recognise a prior injustice and misses the need for reparation for the extensive scope of climate loss and damage. Then, it shows that the concept of reparation, which differs from compensation, holds more promise in giving the proper due for climate loss and damage. Finally, after comparing the liability model and the shared responsibility model proposed by Iris Young, this paper concludes by proposing that the hybrid model of liability and shared responsibility can be used to avoid limitations of the concept of liability.

中文翻译：

---

境内气候损害的责任：协调责任与共同责任

关于气候正义的文献主要关注分配气候变化的收益和负担，特别是与缓解和适应成本相关的收益和负担。因此，人们对围绕缓解和适应失败造成的损失和损害的新出现的政治问题给予的关注较少。本文旨在通过讨论与责任概念相关的补偿性正义来填补这一空白。由于责任的概念在气候政治和理论中具有争议性，因此调查气候损害的赔偿正义必须阐明责任的概念如何与政治责任的规范理论相协调。本文从分配正义计划如何未能讨论气候损害的问题开始，通过辩称该计划不一定承认先前的不公正，并忽略了对广泛范围的气候损失和损害进行赔偿的必要性。然后，它表明，与补偿不同的赔偿概念在对气候损失和损害给予适当应得方面更有希望。最后，本文在比较了 Iris Young 提出的责任模型和责任共担模型之后，提出了可以使用责任与责任共担的混合模型来避免责任概念的局限性。