Applying the Precautionary Principle to Address the “Proof Problem” in Climate Change Litigation

IF 1.7 Q3 Social Sciences
L. Omuko
{"title":"Applying the Precautionary Principle to Address the “Proof Problem” in Climate Change Litigation","authors":"L. Omuko","doi":"10.1163/22112596-02101003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the challenges of climate change litigation is the difficulty of linking particular climate change impacts to emissions from a specific source, referred to as the proof problem . The difficulty is mainly caused by scientific uncertainties and gaps in evidence, which has been exploited by defendants seeking to deny that their emissions can be linked to specific impacts. The paper argues that application of precautionary principle , which requires decision-maker to take measures to prevent harm even where there is no conclusive scientific evidence, could be used to respond to the proof problem . It discusses how the principle can be used to hold entities and public authorities liable in climate change litigation. It provides a background of the principle, how it has been applied in litigation and how the application can be extended to climate change liability. It includes a discussion of climate related cases which have applied this principle to provide insights on how courts have applied the principle.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"52-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22112596-02101003","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22112596-02101003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

One of the challenges of climate change litigation is the difficulty of linking particular climate change impacts to emissions from a specific source, referred to as the proof problem . The difficulty is mainly caused by scientific uncertainties and gaps in evidence, which has been exploited by defendants seeking to deny that their emissions can be linked to specific impacts. The paper argues that application of precautionary principle , which requires decision-maker to take measures to prevent harm even where there is no conclusive scientific evidence, could be used to respond to the proof problem . It discusses how the principle can be used to hold entities and public authorities liable in climate change litigation. It provides a background of the principle, how it has been applied in litigation and how the application can be extended to climate change liability. It includes a discussion of climate related cases which have applied this principle to provide insights on how courts have applied the principle.
运用预防原则解决气候变化诉讼中的“举证问题”
气候变化诉讼的挑战之一是难以将特定的气候变化影响与特定来源的排放联系起来,这被称为证据问题。这一困难主要是由科学上的不确定性和证据的空白造成的,被告一直在利用这一点,试图否认他们的排放与特定的影响有关。预防原则要求决策者在没有确凿的科学证据的情况下也要采取措施预防损害,本文认为预防原则可以用来应对举证问题。它讨论了如何利用这一原则在气候变化诉讼中追究实体和公共当局的责任。它提供了该原则的背景,如何在诉讼中应用以及如何将其应用扩展到气候变化责任。它包括对应用这一原则的气候相关案件的讨论,以提供法院如何应用这一原则的见解。
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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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