Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Carola Glinski
{"title":"Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?","authors":"Carola Glinski","doi":"10.1163/22134514-bja10062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn recent years, constitutional courts and supreme courts have handed down important decisions on (potentially) insufficient climate protection regulation. This article analyses the climate decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court and discusses its application to biodiversity protection. It shows that despite of clarifications related to the State’s constitutional duty to protect citizens, including future generations, against the risks of climate change, the application of the decision to other urgent environmental problems remains unclear. The German standard of review grants the legislator considerable leeway in case of remaining scientific uncertainty and still relies on a clear quantification of protection needs. In contrast, the Urgenda ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court shows the way how in case of scientific uncertainty (potentially insufficient) environmental protection can be judicially reviewed while safeguarding the margin of appreciation of the legislator at the same time.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":"4 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-bja10062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, constitutional courts and supreme courts have handed down important decisions on (potentially) insufficient climate protection regulation. This article analyses the climate decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court and discusses its application to biodiversity protection. It shows that despite of clarifications related to the State’s constitutional duty to protect citizens, including future generations, against the risks of climate change, the application of the decision to other urgent environmental problems remains unclear. The German standard of review grants the legislator considerable leeway in case of remaining scientific uncertainty and still relies on a clear quantification of protection needs. In contrast, the Urgenda ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court shows the way how in case of scientific uncertainty (potentially insufficient) environmental protection can be judicially reviewed while safeguarding the margin of appreciation of the legislator at the same time.
将气候诉讼转移到生物多样性保护?
近年来,宪法法院和最高法院就气候保护法规(可能)不足做出了重要裁决。本文分析了德国联邦宪法法院的气候判决,并讨论了其在生物多样性保护中的应用。它表明,尽管澄清了国家保护公民,包括子孙后代免受气候变化危险的宪法义务,但该决定是否适用于其他紧迫的环境问题仍然不清楚。德国的审查标准在仍然存在科学不确定性的情况下给予立法者相当大的余地,并且仍然依赖于对保护需要的明确量化。相比之下,荷兰最高法院的Urgenda裁决表明,在科学不确定性(可能不足)的情况下,如何在保护立法者的欣赏余地的同时对环境保护进行司法审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信