The need for establishing an international Convention on the responsibility of the Geoengineering executive government and its proposed structure modeled

Introduction: One of the emerging sciences of the last century is the study of climate change on both local and global scales, which attributes many weather events. At the local level, climate modification techniques encompass activities like cloud fertilization to induce local rainfall. However, geoengineering, often defined as "deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system to mitigate global warming," entails altering the climate on a global or hemispheric scale. This can have effects beyond national borders, spanning continents and hemispheres, potentially resulting in disasters such as the accidental and man-made blizzard in Beijing, imperiling human life.
Despite numerous governments capitalizing on climate change for their agendas, the actions and consequences, which often impact countries beyond the responsible nation, lack coverage under national or transnational law. This research aims to highlight the absence of legal frameworks addressing governments' climate manipulation, imposing accountability on perpetrators 
towards victims of these actions. It reviews existing national and international documents related to climate change and seeks to address how governments can be held responsible for geoengineering.
 
Methodology: This research adopts a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach. This research employs a comprehensive descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, drawing on a multifaceted approach to ensure a thorough examination of the subject matter. Combining these methodologies allows a nuanced understanding of the necessity for an international Convention on the responsibility of the Geoengineering executive government and its proposed structure.
Descriptive analysis allows for a meticulous examination of existing literature, legal documents, and agreements related to climate change, geoengineering, and international law. By scrutinizing these materials, the research aims to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and areas in need of further development within the current legal framework. This approach enables a clear articulation of the issues that the proposed international Convention should address.
Moreover, a comparative methodology is integral to this research, as it enables the systematic assessment of existing international agreements that could serve as models for the formulation of a comprehensive geoengineering treaty. By juxtaposing agreements such as the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Montreal Protocol, and the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the study aims to distill the most relevant and effective components from each agreement. This comparative analysis facilitates the identification of elements that can be integrated into the proposed geoengineering Convention to ensure its robustness and efficacy.
The research also delves into historical contexts and case studies to illustrate instances where climate manipulation techniques have led to unintended consequences and the absence of legal accountability. This historical analysis enhances the research's depth by providing real-world examples of the potential risks and impacts associated with geoengineering.
In addition, the research employs a qualitative approach by engaging with expert opinions, legal scholars, and policymakers in the field of international environmental law. By conducting interviews and surveys, the study seeks to gather insights into the perspectives and opinions of stakeholders regarding the need for an international Convention on geoengineering responsibility. These qualitative data provide valuable context and viewpoints that contribute to a well-rounded analysis.
By blending these methodologies, the research endeavors to offer a comprehensive and robust examination of the subject matter, substantiating the necessity for an international Convention and proposing a structured framework that addresses the complex challenges posed by geoengineering on a global scale.
 
Results and Discussion: This study underscores the imperative of drafting and regulating an international agreement concerning geoengineering practices and resultant responsibilities. After elucidating geoengineering techniques and discussing arguments for and against such endeavors, it examines four international agreements as potential models for various aspects of international disputes, responsibility, implementation, and related matters: the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Montreal Protocol, and the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It assesses how these agreements could inform the formulation of a comprehensive global environmental reform law. Additionally, the connection between the proposed document and the United Nations Law Commission's "Liability for Out of Acts Not Prohibited" proposal is explained. The potential consequences of instituting international geoengineering laws are evaluated using cited evidence.
By amalgamating attributes like "mandating governments to perform environmental assessments in accordance with NEPA, delineating dispute resolution procedures outlined in the TRIPS Agreement, and incorporating the precautionary principle, preventive approach, and multilateral fund from the Montreal Protocol," alongside the overarching framework presented by the ENMOD Convention, a robust treaty addressing geoengineering and its associated responsibilities could be devised. This approach not only addresses existing challenges but also offers comprehensive legal guidelines for holding responsible governments accountable for geoengineering's outcomes.
Conclusions Given the absence of international documents or treaties governing the planning, oversight of geoengineering actions, and legal liability for related disasters or environmental modifications, policymakers should leverage existing international law capacities. This can involve formulating standards for the management and supervision of geoengineering actions. Governments should work towards an agreement that anticipates potential geoengineering disasters, encompassing elements like damage assessment systems, impartial assessors, compensation methods, and mechanisms for resolving disputes among involved nations to avert detrimental conflicts.
While assigning liability for "Out of Acts Not Prohibited" could offer some compensation for those affected by climate change, it falls short of meeting the complex needs in terms of management, oversight, compensation dimensions, and dispute resolution. Therefore, harnessing existing capacities is crucial. The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) is a pertinent international treaty that could serve as the foundation for a geoengineering treaty. Legitimacy for any environmental action could hinge on its peaceful nature, requiring countries to demonstrate the peaceful intent of their actions. The Montreal Protocol, a successful model of international environmental cooperation, emphasizes the precautionary principle and employs a range of measures, from financial assistance to embargoes, making it a viable blueprint for a comprehensive treaty. The TRIPS Agreement establishes essential principles and stringent regulations, including dispute resolution mechanisms, making it a suitable basis for a geoengineering agreement. Incorporating NEPA's requirement for governments to report on environmental impact assessments into the comprehensive document could provide a framework for managing and overseeing environmental remediation techniques.
In summary, ENMOD, the TRIPS Agreement, NEPA, and the Montreal Protocol offer valuable principles applicable to geoengineering. Combining these principles and additional provisions from TRIPS and NEPA could shape a coherent structure for an international geoengineering treaty. Furthermore, leveraging the "Liability for Out of Acts Not Prohibited" proposal could yield a legal framework and guidelines for the document's dispute resolution bodies