{"title":"寻找可持续的未来:尼日利亚和肯尼亚气候变化制度的比较评估","authors":"Pontian Okoli, Etisang Abraham","doi":"10.1111/reel.12545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Climate change has caused significant hardship in sub‐Saharan Africa. As a result, Kenya and Nigeria now have statutes that focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Both countries are also parties to the Paris Agreement. The Kenyan Climate Change Act (2016) and the Nigerian Climate Change Act (2021) are similar in terms of their design and overarching aims. Meanwhile, certain pivotal statutory provisions in both statutes are inconsistent with their overarching aims of enhancing appropriate responses to climate change. There is considerable scope for access to justice to be enhanced in the Kenyan and Nigerian statutes. Further, despite their similarities, the divergent approaches of the statutes undermine regional coherence. Such coherence is critical to effectively addressing climate change because both regional powers face similar vulnerabilities with respect to climate change and socio‐economic challenges. This article, therefore, undertakes a comparative analysis of the Kenyan and Nigerian legal regimes in two key respects, namely, (1) institutional structures and how they impact corruption and (2) accessing justice in the context of climate litigation. The Nigerian regime is behind that of Kenya in both regards. The article concludes by examining how the Aarhus Convention and the International Access to Justice Convention can help to fill any statutory gaps concerning access to justice.","PeriodicalId":51681,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In search of a sustainable future: A comparative assessment of climate change regimes in Nigeria and Kenya\",\"authors\":\"Pontian Okoli, Etisang Abraham\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/reel.12545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Climate change has caused significant hardship in sub‐Saharan Africa. As a result, Kenya and Nigeria now have statutes that focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Both countries are also parties to the Paris Agreement. The Kenyan Climate Change Act (2016) and the Nigerian Climate Change Act (2021) are similar in terms of their design and overarching aims. Meanwhile, certain pivotal statutory provisions in both statutes are inconsistent with their overarching aims of enhancing appropriate responses to climate change. There is considerable scope for access to justice to be enhanced in the Kenyan and Nigerian statutes. Further, despite their similarities, the divergent approaches of the statutes undermine regional coherence. Such coherence is critical to effectively addressing climate change because both regional powers face similar vulnerabilities with respect to climate change and socio‐economic challenges. This article, therefore, undertakes a comparative analysis of the Kenyan and Nigerian legal regimes in two key respects, namely, (1) institutional structures and how they impact corruption and (2) accessing justice in the context of climate litigation. The Nigerian regime is behind that of Kenya in both regards. The article concludes by examining how the Aarhus Convention and the International Access to Justice Convention can help to fill any statutory gaps concerning access to justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12545\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12545","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
In search of a sustainable future: A comparative assessment of climate change regimes in Nigeria and Kenya
Climate change has caused significant hardship in sub‐Saharan Africa. As a result, Kenya and Nigeria now have statutes that focus on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Both countries are also parties to the Paris Agreement. The Kenyan Climate Change Act (2016) and the Nigerian Climate Change Act (2021) are similar in terms of their design and overarching aims. Meanwhile, certain pivotal statutory provisions in both statutes are inconsistent with their overarching aims of enhancing appropriate responses to climate change. There is considerable scope for access to justice to be enhanced in the Kenyan and Nigerian statutes. Further, despite their similarities, the divergent approaches of the statutes undermine regional coherence. Such coherence is critical to effectively addressing climate change because both regional powers face similar vulnerabilities with respect to climate change and socio‐economic challenges. This article, therefore, undertakes a comparative analysis of the Kenyan and Nigerian legal regimes in two key respects, namely, (1) institutional structures and how they impact corruption and (2) accessing justice in the context of climate litigation. The Nigerian regime is behind that of Kenya in both regards. The article concludes by examining how the Aarhus Convention and the International Access to Justice Convention can help to fill any statutory gaps concerning access to justice.