...
首页> 外文期刊>Climate Policy >Climate justice and rights-based litigation in a post-Paris world
【24h】

Climate justice and rights-based litigation in a post-Paris world

机译:后巴黎世界的气候司法和基于权利的诉讼

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

In spite of the 2015 Paris Agreement requiring all Parties, irrespective of their development status, to take climate action, the operationalization of climate justice in global climate governance and policy has been fraught. Other avenues, such as litigation, have emerged as a policy tool for seeking redress for past and prospective harm resulting from climate change. The academic and policy literatures have, however, had limited engagement with the role of rights-based litigation in climate governance since Paris. We help fill this gap by developing the four-component OATH (Objective, Associated climate impact, Type of justice, Harm) framework and applying it to three high-profile climate litigation cases - Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Juliana v. United States, and Demanda v. Minambiente. Our analysis confirms that the progress and achievements of these cases demonstrate the potential of climate litigation to force greater national and sub-national government action on climate change. However, litigation better serves some types of justice (e.g. intergenerational) than others (e.g. distributive). Therefore, as its ambition and progress continue to grow, litigation must be combined with other forms of climate action to better advance justice in a post-Paris world.Key policy insightsInternational climate agreements and obligations are important to the success of climate litigation.Climate litigation can be used to hold countries accountable to the commitments they communicate in their NDCs and other policy instruments, but it should be used as one of several policy tools.Litigation pertaining to climate adaptation should and can be expanded to support and advance justice.Distributive justice cannot be sufficiently advanced through domestic climate litigation so it must be further incorporated into international climate agreements and obligations.The universal right to a clean environment, its definition and criteria should be (a) established in international environmental agreements and obligations, and (b) aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
机译:尽管2015年巴黎协议要求各方,无论其发展状况如何,应采取气候行动,全球气候治理和政策中气候正义的运作已经发布。其他途径,如诉讼,已成为追求过去和潜在气候变化所产生的危害的政策工具。然而,从巴黎以来,学术和政策文献有限地参与了基于权利的诉讼在气候治理中的作用。我们通过开发四分组宣誓(客观,相关气候影响,司法类型,危害)框架并将其应用于三个高调的气候诉讼案件 - 荨麻岛v。荷兰,朱利安纳诉美国,和questive v。迷你ampiente。我们的分析证实,这些案件的进展和成就表明了气候诉讼的潜力,以迫使更大的国家和亚国家政府对气候变化行动的行动。然而,诉讼更好地服务于某些类型的司法(例如代际)(例如分配)。因此,随着其雄心和进展的雄心和进展持续发展,诉讼必须与其他形式的气候行动相结合,以更好地在巴黎后的世界中提升正义.Key政策洞察国际气候协定和义务对气候诉讼的成功非常重要。诉讼诉讼可用于持有各国对他们在其NDCS和其他政策工具中沟通的承诺负责,但它应该被用作若干政策工具之一。与气候适应有关的目的,可以扩大到支持和推进司法。指数司法通过国内气候诉讼不能充分推进,因此必须进一步纳入国际气候协定和义务。通用对清洁环境的普遍权利,其定义和标准应该是(a)在国际环境协定和义务中建立,(b)与巴黎协议的目标保持一致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号