UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Climate Change Litigation's Turn to International Climate and Human Rights Law'

Identification

Clé publique

openalex:w3215550428

Auteurs

Marlies Hesselman

Année déclarée

2021

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

preprint

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:04:47.595748+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:05:51.629557+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

University of Groningen

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

NL

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

Despite literature and practice pointing to a range of international legal instruments and tribunals potentially relevant to international litigation, international and regional CCL has been sparse so far. In so far it exists, it chiefly focuses on human suits, including some exciting new cases pending before United Nations (UN) Human Rights Treaty Bodies (see also Hesselman 2021 on health-related cases). In relation to domestic law suits, a veritable to human has been observed recently. This chapter underscores this finding, and additionally argues that there has be a useful wider turn to international law as well. In fact, after setting out some recent innovative trends in rights-based ligation (e.g. towards recognitions of rights to a stable climate or rights of nature) this publication compares how courts delivering landmark judgments in the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland have dealt with complaints about shortcomings in States’ individual greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction ambitions with a view to 2020, 2030 or 2050, with the help of or in light of international law. The analysis shows that domestic courts have proven both willing and able to determine that certain legal obligations for change mitigation exist for States individually, on the basis of relevant applicable national, regional or international laws, typically when taken together, including when petitioners challenge specific GHG reduction targets or pathways for 2020, 2030 or 2050 in light of collective objectives under UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The chapter evidences that litigation might be most successful when aggregating a range of legal bases, and when firmly grounding legal arguments in (a thorough discussion of) human rights, along with principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), taking the lead, highest possible ambition, and precautionary principle. In fact, it is argued that the Dutch judges’ engagement with both relevant law principles and its unique turn to human law, along with a keen understanding of the nature and urgency of global warming generally – is what informed the proceedings' ultimate success. In particular, the chapter explains now the Dutch courts concluded that sufficiently safe action must be undertaken by States collectively and individually now, by reducing GHGs in an orderly manner, without delays, and as rapidly as possible. There is a clear assumption, that any excess tonne of CO2 unnecessarily emitted now, will be one too many for the rapidly depleting global carbon budget. It follows from this that both collective and individual responsibilities to pursue safe GHG reduction efforts exist, especially in as fast and linear a manner as possible. Finally, the chapter concludes by briefly observing that it is telling that rights-based litigation is currently chiefly undertaken by those marginalized, voiceless or underrepresented in 'democratic processes' (i.e. youth, indigenous communities, elderly). Thus, while some court judgments discussed in the chapter still consider that it is up to ‘democratic’ governments to ‘weigh the competing factors’ or ‘reach a view about appropriate targets moving forward’ (e.g. Thomson v. Minister for Climate Change Issues, 2017), this article argues that it is vital to establish, with the Dutch courts, that unfettered discretion of governments cannot exist: human precisely provide a bottom line that offers protection for all, especially including against harmful decisions by ‘majority’ communities, or those ‘in power’.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W3215550428

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Working paper

Types déclarés par les sources

preprint

Juridictions étudiées — sources explicites

DE · GB · IE · NL · NZ

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W3215550428

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.