The IPCC's report in 2018 projects global warming will increase by 1.5oC in 2030, which makes contribution of each country to control their emissions becomes significant. This study seeks to investigate what entitlement human beings have over the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere as well as the harm it caused by elaborating the Entitlement Theory of Justice, thereto, finding out how the burden of climate change should be distributed according to the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) and the Equal per Capita Shares Principle (ECSP). Furthermore, this study seeks to investigate Indonesia's part in increasing the burden of climate change and whether Indonesia should be held responsible for its part by comparing data of Indonesia's emissions to some developed countries' emissions. Humanity has a collective ownership over the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere, which implies that every individual has equal share of this absorptive capacity. A violation of this equal share should be compensated. The PPP suggests countries, who has the most cumulative amount of emissions from the past to present, to compensate and bear the climate change burden. While, the ECSP suggests countries, who emit more than their equal share per capita, to bear the climate change burden and reduce their emissions. Indonesia, despites massive amounts of CO2 released by its deforestation and annual haze, contributes insignificant to climate change due to both its cumulative and per capita emissions are considerably low compared to developed countries and even lower than acountry with large population size such as China.

This thesis provides an analytical interpretation of the critique Dutch nineteenth-century statesman-cum-historian Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) articulated of French revolutionary ideology. It achieves an original reading of Groen's thought as Protestant right-order theory. This reading achieves a clarification of the functions that Scripture, 'nature', and 'history' have in his thought, and connects his thinking to that of a small group of contemporary British-based political theologians, notably Oliver and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, and their minority view on the ontological grounding of justice. Our comparison of Groen's argument of 'history' with that of Edmund Burke achieves original critical leverage on their concepts of 'history', and draws out that Burke's critique of the Revolution purposes to re-affirm English common law, while Groen's is an apologia for Christianity.