气候诉讼、人权的治外法权与德国宪法

IF 0.4 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Lea Main-Klingst, Hermann E Ott
{"title":"气候诉讼、人权的治外法权与德国宪法","authors":"Lea Main-Klingst, Hermann E Ott","doi":"10.1163/24686042-12340110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nConstitutional obligations can bind the authorities of a state not only in relation to their own citizens but also to people living abroad. The extent of this ‘extraterritoriality of human rights’ has been the subject of much debate. Recent decisions by German courts, in particular the Constitutional Court, have begun spelling out the reach of this obligation for German authorities. In 2020, citizens from Bangladesh and Nepal turned to the Constitutional Court, submitting a complaint, alongside German individuals, on the insufficient and weak climate policy of the German government. As part of its subsequent landmark decision, the Constitutional Court surprisingly upheld the admissibility of the complaints by non-German nationals living outside of Germany. The Court confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions emanating from Germany could potentially give rise to a duty to protect people abroad from the adverse effects of climate change, based on the fundamental rights protection provided under the Basic Law. However, the Court dismissed the complaints on substantive grounds. It established that – should extraterritorial obligations exist – these would differ from domestic obligations in both content and standard of review. Yet, the Court fell short in establishing a suitable standard for assessing a breach of the duty to protect in an extraterritorial context.","PeriodicalId":29889,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"139 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Climate Litigation, Extraterritoriality of Human Rights and the German Constitution\",\"authors\":\"Lea Main-Klingst, Hermann E Ott\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24686042-12340110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nConstitutional obligations can bind the authorities of a state not only in relation to their own citizens but also to people living abroad. The extent of this ‘extraterritoriality of human rights’ has been the subject of much debate. Recent decisions by German courts, in particular the Constitutional Court, have begun spelling out the reach of this obligation for German authorities. In 2020, citizens from Bangladesh and Nepal turned to the Constitutional Court, submitting a complaint, alongside German individuals, on the insufficient and weak climate policy of the German government. As part of its subsequent landmark decision, the Constitutional Court surprisingly upheld the admissibility of the complaints by non-German nationals living outside of Germany. The Court confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions emanating from Germany could potentially give rise to a duty to protect people abroad from the adverse effects of climate change, based on the fundamental rights protection provided under the Basic Law. However, the Court dismissed the complaints on substantive grounds. It established that – should extraterritorial obligations exist – these would differ from domestic obligations in both content and standard of review. Yet, the Court fell short in establishing a suitable standard for assessing a breach of the duty to protect in an extraterritorial context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law\",\"volume\":\"139 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

宪法义务不仅对本国公民,而且对生活在国外的人都具有约束力。这种 "人权的域外性 "的范围一直是争论的焦点。德国法院,尤其是宪法法院最近的判决开始明确规定德国当局的这一义务的范围。2020 年,来自孟加拉国和尼泊尔的公民与德国个人一起向宪法法院提出申诉,控诉德国政府气候政策的不足和薄弱。在随后做出的具有里程碑意义的决定中,宪法法院出人意料地支持受理居住在德国境外的非德国公民的申诉。法院确认,根据《基本法》规定的基本权利保护,德国排放的温室气体有可能导致有责任保护国外人民免受气候变化的不利影响。然而,法院以实质性理由驳回了申诉。法院认为,如果存在域外义务,那么这些义务在内容和审查标准上都与国内义务不同。然而,法院没有确立一个适当的标准来评估在域外情况下违反保护义务的行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Climate Litigation, Extraterritoriality of Human Rights and the German Constitution
Constitutional obligations can bind the authorities of a state not only in relation to their own citizens but also to people living abroad. The extent of this ‘extraterritoriality of human rights’ has been the subject of much debate. Recent decisions by German courts, in particular the Constitutional Court, have begun spelling out the reach of this obligation for German authorities. In 2020, citizens from Bangladesh and Nepal turned to the Constitutional Court, submitting a complaint, alongside German individuals, on the insufficient and weak climate policy of the German government. As part of its subsequent landmark decision, the Constitutional Court surprisingly upheld the admissibility of the complaints by non-German nationals living outside of Germany. The Court confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions emanating from Germany could potentially give rise to a duty to protect people abroad from the adverse effects of climate change, based on the fundamental rights protection provided under the Basic Law. However, the Court dismissed the complaints on substantive grounds. It established that – should extraterritorial obligations exist – these would differ from domestic obligations in both content and standard of review. Yet, the Court fell short in establishing a suitable standard for assessing a breach of the duty to protect in an extraterritorial context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
6
×
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