Search

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article compares the concept of unlawful act in the Indonesian and Dutch Civil Codes, with specific attention to the notorious decision of the Milieudefensie et al v. Royal Dutch Shell Case. Therein, the Dutch Court applied unwritten law under Article 6:612 of the Dutch Civil Code, calling for reduction in carbon emissions through policy changes by the Shell group. The use of unwritten law allowed for a comprehensive assessment of legal bases, including international soft law instruments, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Inspired by such a decision, this article aims to unveil the readiness of Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code in entertaining a similar case. It compares the approach taken in the Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Case with pertinent decisions by the Indonesian court concerning the implementation of Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Furthermore, it focuses on two prongs of civil liability that are necessary for establishment: 1) unwritten law; and 2) causality. By doing so, this article aims to contribute to the evolving realm of climate litigation, specifically within the framework of civil law.

In State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (the Urgenda verdict), the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the Dutch Government to pursue a goal of a 25 % rather than a 20 % decrease in CO2 emissions. The present article discusses the verdict and climate litigation of this kind more generally from a functional perspective rather than from the perspective of democratic legitimacy. It argues that the premises of the Court were inapplicable from an economic perspective and that the faulty reasoning is indicative of reasons why judicial restraint is socially desirable in the area of climate policies. From the viewpoint of social welfare, it may be desirable that a court overrides climate policy if the policy neglects the interests of future generations, i.e. if it is unsustainable. However, the Court did not consult the economic literature on sustainable climate policies. It relied on a consensus among climate scientists, on the European Convention of Human Rights, and on the precautionary principle. We argue that if the Court had consulted the economic literature, it would have found disagreement about how quickly emissions should be lowered, and it would have had to address many complex sources of disagreement that cannot be eliminated by recourse to human rights or the precautionary principle. The Court would have had to subjectively assess different economic theories. However, the litigation process is not set up for and judges are not trained for this complex assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a response to Henrik Lando's article on courts and climate policies. Lando's argument can be summarized in two propositions. The first is that EU courts have adopted a suboptimal legal standard for evaluating climate policies. Lando's second proposition is that courts are not a good forum for the evaluation of climate policies because of the need to focus on the narrow interests of the litigants before the courts. I agree with Lando's first proposition, but I disagree somewhat with his second proposition. It is pitched too broadly in my view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The opinion focuses on the European Court of Human Right's (ECtHR) recent judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland which was handed down on 9 April 2023. The decision broke new ground by establishing that 'Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life'. The opinion discusses five key aspects of this voluminous judgment which will likely have an impact far beyond this individual case, including the points made relating to the role of the ECtHR, courts in general and the Convention as a living instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares the concept of unlawful act in the Indonesian and Dutch Civil Codes, with specific attention to the notorious decision of the Milieudefensie et al v. Royal Dutch Shell Case. Therein, the Dutch Court applied unwritten law under Article 6:612 of the Dutch Civil Code, calling for reduction in carbon emissions through policy changes by the Shell group. The use of unwritten law allowed for a comprehensive assessment of legal bases, including international soft law instruments, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Inspired by such a decision, this article aims to unveil the readiness of Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code in entertaining a similar case. It compares the approach taken in the Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Case with pertinent decisions by the Indonesian court concerning the implementation of Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Furthermore, it focuses on two prongs of civil liability that are necessary for establishment: 1) unwritten law; and 2) causality. By doing so, this article aims to contribute to the evolving realm of climate litigation, specifically within the framework of civil law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the realm of intergenerational justice, green constitutionalism underscores the necessity for present generations to make choices that do not jeopardize the capacity of future generations to fulfill their needs independently. The climate verdict defending the rights of future generations by the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of March 2021 was a game changer in that regard. For the first time in Germany's climate litigation, the fundamental rights of future generations were subject to constitutional claim and enforceable. They were no longer just a normative claim. Constitutional courts can be seen as defenders of the fundamental rights of future generations where constitutions include such normative perspectives. While the Court upheld the infringement of the fundamental rights of the adolescent plaintiffs in the future, the representation of not-yet-born generations remains unclear. This article examines how the 2021 German climate verdict and constitutional provisions address the representation and protection of the interests of future generations represented by the plaintiffs concerning climate change on the one hand and discusses the potential of protecting the fundamental rights of not-yet-born future generations. The article considers the implications for intergenerational justice and explores how these legal frameworks provided by the Constitution may contribute to the formulation of sustainable policies aimed at ensuring the long-term well-being of future generations. There is an urgent need to develop an institutional regime where the needs and rights of future generations are being considered and included in decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht is the property of Boom uitgevers Den Haag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Climate injustice has become a prominent issue following the Paris Agreement, where emissions generated by developed countries burden local communities in developing countries. Consequently, one of the efforts to address climate injustice for communities in the Global South is through climate litigation processes. The process itself is a challenging one since the litigants need support legally and politically to ensure it has proceeded. Here, non-governmental organisation's (NGO) engagement is the most feasible support that local communities can access. This article analyzes the dynamics of climate justice attempts through a unique case study: climate litigation between residents of Pulau Pari, a small island located in the Java Sea, Indonesia, and the cement giant Holcim-LaFarge in Switzerland. This climate litigation is advocated by three collaborating NGOs: HEKS (Switzerland), ECCHR (Germany), and WALHI (Indonesia). Using a qualitative method, we analyze the role of NGO advocacy in the litigation process using the advocacy function concept by Joseph Szarka; issue framing, construction and dissemination of knowledge, responsibility attribution, political lobbying, public mobilization and agenda setting. We argue that the advocacy support of the three related NGOs amplified the climate litigation process beyond legal proceedings. The strategy of advocating climate litigation is an innovative way to create wider recognition from the international community and push adaptation to the struggle of the local community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Estudios Políticos is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article highlights the importance of differentiating between environmental law and climate law in India, and, in doing so, analyses what counts as climate law in that country. It identifies three overarching approaches (trickle-down; Environmental Impact Assessment as climate law; and human rights law and climate change) that the current literature adopts to study and analyse climate law in India. We argue that none of these approaches comprehensively covers climate change mitigation measures adopted in this country. We propose an alternative approach to the analysis of climate law in India, which we call 'administrative layering'. Accordingly, we outline a three-step process to identify and conceptualize climate law in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last decade has seen an increase in the number, specificity and importance of laws codifying national and international responses to climate change. As these laws have recognised new rights and created new obligations, they have led to the initiation of lawsuits challenging either their effectiveness or their concrete application. The aim of these disputes is to force legislators and policy makers to take a more ambitious and thorough approach to climate change. In addition, litigation has continued to fill the gaps left by legislative and regulatory inaction. As a result, the courts are increasingly adjudicating disputes over actions - or inaction - in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latin America is highly vulnerable to climate change. From a justice-centred approach, its communities have been using human and constitutional rights as a strategy to combat environmental degradation and protect ecosystems in climate litigation. Thus, the paper analyses the ecological dimension of human rights arising from the Latin American climate litigation by selecting disputes that link human rights and the protection of a specific ecosystem, which enables catching both the right to a healthy environment and the rights of nature. As for the results, the national courts interpret human rights from the notion of a socio-ecological system, emphasising a rights-duties approach based on social justice. The territory becomes a non-static space, there is a long-term temporal scale of rights, and the lawsuits elaborate on the interests of future generations. The rights of nature acknowledge a more-than-human world and argue that nature's legal titularity complements human rights, and both agendas meet at the intersection with the safe climate system. Although climate change appears as a secondary concern, applicants use the climate crisis as a crosscutting element aimed at ecosystems' protection and its impact on human rights. In conclusion, these disputes are ecological legal experiences that extensively redefine human rights law from the meeting between the system of rights and the cultural context of groups historically excluded from the spaces of power. Human rights receive a new axiological content reoriented from the realities of peripheral territories and previously invisible ecological backgrounds through the dynamic interaction with plural subjects that become drivers of transformations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental legislation in South Africa does not explicitly require that the executive branch consider climate change in environmental decision-making. Yet, in a handful of climate cases, the executive has been found to have acted unlawfully (and thus unconstitutionally) by failing to do so. We argue that the case law has implicitly introduced a 'duty' to consider climate change mitigation and adaptation issues. The precedent set entails that in order to act lawfully as required by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, decision-makers must take climate change into account in various contexts. This article describes the role of the judiciary within South Africa's transformative constitutional regime, and the interpretive approach they are mandated to adopt. The interpretive approach is a feature of South Africa's normative conceptualization of the separation of powers. We then describe how, in the exercise of this role, the 'duty' to consider climate change has emerged and evolved through three instances of climate litigation in the High Courts, and one before the Water Tribunal. We conclude that the power of judiciary in South Africa to respond to the myriad human rights and justice implications of the climate crisis derives not only from constitutionally entrenched human rights. Equally important are the mechanisms within the broader transformative architecture of the constitutional order. By making this modest point, we hope to deepen the understanding of the utility of human rights in climate litigation in the Global South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate litigation in Colombia is increasingly centred on fundamental and/or constitutional human rights. This note evaluates rights-based climate litigation in Colombia through the lens of five cases that protect ecosystems: the Atrato River, the Combeima River, and the Bruno River; the Amazon rainforest; and the Páramos ecosystem. First, the framing of cases is analysed. Second, the judges' interpretations of the link between constitutional rights and climate change (if any), their reasoning, the scope of the remedies granted, and their intended impact are analysed. Relatedly, the note explores whether decisions that do not explicitly mention climate change can be considered climate cases as their remedies directly or indirectly affect climate change mitigation or adaptation. Finally, the note examines the status of compliance with or implementation of judicial remedies in climate cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global climate crisis demands that all branches of government play a role in tackling climate change, including the judiciary. One important mechanism is climate litigation. In the adjudication of climate litigation, courts can advance the protection of human rights, promote environmental values, assist in developing climate change law and policy, and uphold the rule of law. However, some Latin American countries are facing several constitutional and legal barriers to adequately protecting environmental and human rights enshrined in their constitutions. Through analysis of the Chilean and Ecuadorian contexts, this note identifies obstacles and barriers that might prevent human rights' protection in each jurisdiction when adjudicating climate cases and proposes reforms that may strengthen courts' performance. Among the options are strengthening existing environmental and human rights provisions, developing new legal frameworks addressing climate change, and enhancing the capacity of courts to hear and decide climate change cases. Furthermore, these reforms must be accompanied by adequate resources, training, and support for the judiciary effectively to advance climate justice through human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The climate crisis will continue to affect human and natural systems across Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Undoubtedly, this jeopardizes entire communities' enjoyment of human rights. In that context, the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) is expected to respond, particularly since its organs have jurisdiction to order remedies over most LAC countries, provided they determine a rights violation. Despite the growing number of domestic human rights-based climate cases in the region, the organs of the IAHRS have yet to adjudicate and order remedies in a case concerning the climate crisis. Against this backdrop, this article inquires how to understand climate remedies from a political ecology perspective to capture the LAC climate litigation experience. Additionally, the article asks what the challenges of implementing such remedies may be. To answer these questions, first, it compares the remedial approaches of domestic courts in six finally decided climate-related cases with those of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in 'anti-extractivist' cases. Second, it applies a political ecology lens to understand the elements that might hinder the implementation of the identified remedies. The article argues that the socioeconomic cost for States largely determines remedial compliance in domestic climate litigation and the IACtHR's anti-extractivist litigation. Ultimately, the aim is to anticipate the future of climate remedies and their effectiveness at the IACtHR based on present climate litigation in LAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article evidences to what extent rights-based climate litigation is applied as a strategy to enhance the recognition and protection of climate-induced migrants. Adopting a deductive approach and desk review, the study, illustrates how climate-induced migration has been addressed by International Human Rights Law, with some attention also paid to the growing application of the right to a safe climate and climate justice. The study highlights the duties of both States and private actors in tackling the emerging climate crisis under the human rights agenda. Relevant responsibilities are framed in particular within the scope of rights-based litigation dealing with the topic. We present an analysis of litigation linked to climate-induced migration that was filed before distinct international, regional, and national jurisdictions and, in doing so, propose a chronology of cases—structured in three generations —of how population movements as a result of climate change have been discussed by judicial means. The first generation relates to cases that consider the issue from the perspective of protection—in both national, regional, and international jurisdictions. The second generation emerges within general climate litigation claims, involving commitments linked to the climate agenda. In addition to raising (forced) population movements as one of the expected impacts of climate change, such cases frequently call upon a rights-based approach. The third generation encompasses rights-based cases centred on climate-induced migrants per se. The strengths and limitations of rights-based litigation to respond to the topic are finally highlighted: we conclude that litigation remains a blunt but not unpromising tool to respond to climate-induced migration. Generic references to the risk of (forced) population movements largely prevail; nevertheless, strategic rights-based litigation can facilitate the visibility of climate-induced migrants to the international community, fostering the development of legal solutions in the longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there has been some climate litigations in Indonesia, a rights-based climate case has yet to emerge. On the other hand, several rights-based environmental cases have seen the light of day before the Indonesian courts, although with more failures than successes. This note explores the prospects and challenges for future rights-based climate litigation in Indonesia by reflecting on previous climate and rights-based environmental cases. At the same time, with reference to Urgenda , this note recognizes a growing global discourse on transnational climate litigation, unveiling the possibility of replicating successful climate litigation strategies from one jurisdiction to another. This note inquires into what potential plaintiffs can learn from Urgenda and previous Indonesian climate and rights-based environmental litigation to strategize future rights-based climate lawsuits before Indonesian courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introduction presents a special collection of the Journal of Human Rights Practice , 'Developments, Opportunities and Complexities in Global South Climate Litigation'. It conceptualizes and problematizes 'climate litigation' and the 'Global South', and brings together perspectives from a diverse range of scholars and practitioners from the Global South to advance knowledge on how climate litigation in the region has developed in recent years. The number of cases discussed, and the depth of analyses illustrate that the region is contributing to the pursuit of climate justice through litigation. The collection showcases a rich body of scholarship on climate litigation from African, Latin American, and Asian perspectives. In the face of political, cultural, and other barriers to knowledge production, contributions demonstrate nuanced, contextual engagement with climate litigation in the Global South. Therefore, this collection challenges the narrative that cases dealing with climate change and its human rights and justice implications are few and far between in the Global South. It emphasizes their relevance for the global discourse on climate litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate emergency is one of the facets shaping the current stage of ecological imbalance and requires action to be taken. The trend to address conflicts involving climate change by legal means is clearly on the rise, and the article argues that this calls for an evolving constitutional dialogue on human rights. The article examines the phenomenon, particularly in Latin American countries, explaining how past development of constitutions in the region, for all its precarious effectiveness, has already served to consolidate a path demanding judicial review in matters affecting human rights of constitutional stature. It argues that this path is being pursued by the ongoing climate litigation in Latin America. Based on case discussions, the article demonstrates how compliance with the Paris Agreement has been assimilated as a commitment to constitutional protection of human rights in the region, and how this process must deepen, taking into account regional vulnerabilities and future developments, in order to strengthen the fundamental human right not only to mitigation, but also to adaptation and equitable transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the world is still far from achieving its emission reduction target. Despite the scientific certainty of the devastating effects of climate change on human rights, countries' 'nationally determined contributions' (NDCs) still fall short of the 1.5 °C goal. Compared to developed countries and their historical contributions, the Global South's role in climate mitigation may appear insignificant. However, the magnitude of the human rights effects of climate change are enormous. Any increase above 1.5 °C would endanger human well-being and the ecosystems on which human life depends. Therefore, all parties must cooperate to adopt more ambitious NDCs. This imperative—while falling mainly on the Global North, which holds significant historical responsibility for emissions—also extends beyond the Global North, to, for example, a country like Brazil. This article assesses how fair share has played a role in climate litigation cases in the Global North (primarily in Europe) and discusses the possibilities and challenges of bringing similar cases in Brazil. It relies on the fair share methodology used to substantiate the argument of increased ambition in cases in the Global North, discussing whether a similar argument could be brought in Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many jurisdictions, procedural rules and arrangements that govern litigation are not necessarily well-suited to the protection of collective interests, such as the environment. This idea has been flagged for a while by scholars and practitioners from different jurisdictions and was part of the reason for promoting specific regulations on access to justice in environmental matters. The protection of the climate adds a new layer of complexity, as it is increasingly clear that, even in jurisdictions where a strong rule of law is presumed to exist, barriers to access to justice remain. We depart from the idea of a mismatch between procedural rules and climate protection through courts to explore the interface between two convergent phenomena in the Latin American region: the Escazú Agreement's implementation and climate litigation. Based on data gathered through interviews with 11 legal practitioners involved in climate cases in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico, this article identifies procedural barriers that plaintiffs face in the courtroom and discusses if and how the implementation of the Escazú Agreement could overcome them for the improvement of access to justice in climate matters in the region. In doing that, it highlights relevant experiences in Latin America that could be of interest to those seeking to overcome procedural hurdles in other regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a systematic analysis of climate litigation in the Brazilian Supreme Court. It argues that climate litigation in Brazil is centred on the protection of human rights and the court is ready (and eager) to draw a closer connection between climate and human rights. The climate litigation movement in Brazil follows in the wake of more than 40 years of a rich environmental legal framework and jurisprudence. This long trajectory includes adopting a chapter in the 1988 Brazilian Constitution dedicated to the right to an ecologically balanced environment. The Constitution determines this is a fundamental human right, encompassing the present and future generations. Building on this context, recent climate litigation cases question how climate stability fits within this constitutional framework. As the country's constitutional tribunal, the Supreme Court recently received important climate cases addressing Brazil's climate policy implementation. This article proceeds in three parts. First, the article contextualizes the climate litigation movement in Brazil's broader environmental legal framework. Second, the article describes the Supreme Court climate docket of concentrated control cases. It focuses on the human right to an ecologically balanced environment and its connections with other constitutionally protected human rights. Third, the article examines the cases' judicial reasoning, considering how the Supreme Court addressed climate change in the decisions (interlocutory or on the merits) available thus far. The ultimate goal of this article is to deepen the understanding of how the Supreme Court approaches climate as a human right through the methodical examination of the court's pronouncements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate litigation is anticipated to continue expanding, especially related to the interface with the human rights of vulnerable populations and the adequacy of states' efforts to adopt and implement climate laws. While the possibility of climate-related litigation is envisaged before the African Human Rights System (AHRS), there is no pioneering case on climate change at that level yet. Essential rights that may be relevant in climate change litigation in the AHRS are not yet tested and often have claw-back clauses that have limits imposed by national legislation. Also, climate change commitments that may link to human rights are under a regime outside the AHRS. These developments may generate conceptual divergences regarding a state's sovereign right and climate justice in future climate litigation within the AHRS. This article explores the potential application of claw-back clauses and divergent views on states' sovereign rights and climate justice in climate change instruments that may feature in individual communications at the AHRS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the implications of the Royal Dutch Shell Judgment (Milieudefensie and Ors. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc) within the Indian legal context, examining its potential effects and associated challenges. The global influence of the Dutch Court's ruling extends to Shell Group subsidiaries in India, with implications for the country's fossil fuel industries, particularly those affiliated with the Shell Group. The Indian legal system may domestically apply, fully or partially, the Dutch decision under the national legal framework or in accordance with international legal norms. This application, however, is filled with political, legal, and jurisdictional challenges. Regardless, the broader impact of the Royal Dutch Shell decision is anticipated to transcend national boundaries, catalyzing a series of climate litigation cases in various jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a 3-2 majority, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling today, significantly impacting the consideration of climate impacts in the oil and gas licensing process. While the Government’s approach so far has been to only consider exploration and production emissions, the Court’s decision establishes that emissions resulting from burning the produced oil and gas (regardless of where it occurs) have to also be considered. The ruling is significant as it is the first highest court decision to adopt this interpretation on climate impacts of fossil fuel production. It will no doubt have a knock-on effect on at least three other cases pending before lower courts in the UK, and potentially affect cases both within and outside the European Union.

KlimaSeniorinnen has established a remedy which, in EU law, is not easy to locate and may actually be unavailable in light of restrictive CJEU case law. Whatever one’s views on this restrictive case law, it is a fact that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights now obliges the CJEU to do as much as it can to accommodate the KlimaSeniorinnen remedy and to interpret the relevant TFEU provisions flexibly. One may assume that, sooner or later, the CJEU will be confronted with a KlimaSeniorinnen claim. If the CJEU were to declare such a claim inadmissible, it will put itself in the corner of courts refusing to engage with climate change policies. That would be unfortunate for a court that has long been at the forefront of legal progress.

The KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been the subject of intense debate for several weeks. One focus was on the question of standing, i.e., who can bring a lawsuit connected to climate change and human rights before the ECtHR. However, less attention has been paid to the question of the impact of the judgment on currently pending climate change cases before the ECtHR. This blog post sheds light on “climate change case number four”, a case against Austria primarily challenging the shortcomings of the Austrian Climate Protection Act.

On May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a long-awaited Advisory Opinion on climate change and international law. This marks the first time that an international tribunal has issued an advisory opinion on State obligations regarding climate change mitigation. The Advisory Opinion addresses several key questions regarding application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the context of climate change. There is much to explore in terms of both the content of the ITLOS advisory opinion and its potential implications for global, regional, and local efforts to combat climate change. To facilitate discussion and the exchange of ideas, the Sabin Center's Climate Law Blog and Verfassungsblog are partnering on a blog symposium on the ITLOS opinion. In this first, introductory blog, we outline the background to the advisory opinion and highlight some of the key takeaways from it.

On 9 April the European Court of Human Rights issued its first ever comprehensive decision in a climate litigation case. The ECtHR has set out clear directions for member states to follow to align their climate policies with human rights obligations. Domestic legislators across Europe must give these requirements serious consideration to ensure their climate laws not only meet these minimum standards but also effectively contribute to global climate goals. This is imperative for both environmental sustainability and the protection of fundamental human rights that climate change is affecting.

The recent rulings on climate change by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are—as others have pointed out in this blog symposium—both “historic and unprecedented” for various reasons, not least regarding the question of reparation for climate change-related harm. While redress is a pivotal question to think through in relation to climate change, it has, somewhat surprisingly, received less attention from scholars and has not yet been directly addressed by international courts and tribunals. In this regard, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland might be considered a missed opportunity on the part of the ECtHR.

This blog post discusses the relevance of the KlimaSeniorinnen case to the discussion of vulnerability and intersectional gender in climate litigation. To date, very few climate cases have addressed the gendered dimensions of climate change and there was some hope that this case would. However, as this post argues, despite the fact that KlimaSeniorinnen is a case about the impacts of climate change on elderly women, the Court fails to meaningfully engage with gender as a determinant of the harms suffered by individuals. Gender remains an overlooked issue in climate litigation.

In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights makes many general statements about the nature of climate change and different actors’ roles in addressing it. Many points have been addressed in this blog symposium. In my blog post, I turn to a more technical aspect of the judgment, namely the question of causation. I will untangle the analytical gymnastics that the Court performs regarding this question. I will argue that the reasoning regarding causation is confusing and that it is not clear how specifically the ‘real prospect’ test is applied for finding a breach.

In a widely acclaimed judgment, India recently saw its first climate ruling issued by the Supreme Court. The Court derived the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change from Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution. The ruling of the Supreme Court has been classified in this blog as an important step in connecting human rights and climate change. In this blog post, I offer another overarching route that cases connected to climate change in India have taken, which is genre-bending in that they use environmental litigation as the pathway to also address climate change.

Manuela Niehaus defends the human rights-based climate jurisprudence - especially of the ECtHR - against my criticism. It is not "Homeophatic Globules for Environmental Lawyers", but a potentially life-saving medicine that - in combination with other means - can make a significant contribution to climate protection.

A key and underrated aspect of the recent triad of climate rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is that the ECtHR has brought to the fore the role of trade-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in states’ carbon footprints. While most international climate agreements focus on the reduction of domestic GHG emissions, in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland Judgment (KlimaSeniorinnen), the ECtHR found ‘attributable’ to Switzerland the GHG emissions taking place abroad, ‘embedded’ into goods (and possibly services) ‘consumed’ in Switzerland. As I will argue, the ruling appears to require Switzerland to adopt a climate-oriented trade policy.

The climate crisis is one of the most serious problems that humankind has ever faced. With the adverse consequences of this phenomenon, new practices have emerged in social, economic, and legal structures. One of these new practices is doubtlessly climate litigation that aim to pressure states to fulfil their positive obligations concerning the mitigation of the human- induced climate crisis. Global warming, advancing at an unprecedented rate, is pushing governments to take immediate measures and shape their legislation accordingly. Within this movement, the principle of non-regression, rooted in human rights, has gained a tangible form in environmental law. This study explores the potential role of the climate crisis and, specifically, the climate litigation cases in Europe in establishing the principle of non-regression as a settled principle in environmental law. It discusses its value as an argument in climate litigation from a practical point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the article is to draw attention to one of the current trends in climate litigation, in which the solution of a human rights issue becomes the essence of the dispute. This trend is known as the "human rights turn", whereby the failure to fulfil or adequately fulfil national or international climate commitments is linked directly to the violation of fundamental human rights. The paper notes the impact of this trend on the interpretation of some fundamental human rights (in particular the right to life, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment). It draws attention to the need to strike a balance between protecting the rights of present and future generations. The application of the principle of intergenerational solidarity and the principle of proportionality is a primary factor in addressing this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

While there is scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change, also reflected in international agreements and EU norms obliging states to reduce GHG emissions, domestic legislation has been slow or imperfect in implementing reduction duties. Although climate litigation is not a new phenomenon, a specific strand of climate litigation is now gaining impetus owing to the success garnered in Urgenda and the Klimabeschluss: litigation focusing on states' omitting to lawfully regulate emission targets. This paper presents the context of novel climate litigation in the face of Russian aggression and the ensuing disincentives to promote ambitious reduction goals, proceeding to describe the arguments and findings in the two landmark cases and their effects on future climate litigation as seen in the example of the climate petition pending before the Hungarian Constitutional Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to highlight the decisive role of supranational and national courts in the recognition of a fundamental right to a healthy environment and in widening the scope of its protection. It analyses, in a critical sense, the doctrine that defines this trend as jurisprudential activism and that raises concerns regarding the principle of separation of powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)