{"title":"赫尔德诉蒙大拿州:气候变化诉讼中的宪法权利转向?","authors":"Erin C Ferguson","doi":"10.1093/jel/eqae017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This analysis examines the decision in Held v State of Montana by the Montana First Judicial District Court, in which 16 youth plaintiffs successfully argued that provisions within the state energy policy and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. As the first climate case in the USA to be brought based on a constitutional right to a healthy environment, it has received considerable attention and is being hailed as a landmark victory. This analysis examines the case in the context of recent trends in climate change litigation and argues that whilst the decision is indeed noteworthy, the circumstances that led to the decision make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful claims will follow in the USA. Nevertheless, the case could mark a so-called ‘constitutional rights turn’ in climate litigation, as the case bolsters support for stronger protections for environmental rights.","PeriodicalId":46437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Held v State of Montana: A Constitutional Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?\",\"authors\":\"Erin C Ferguson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jel/eqae017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This analysis examines the decision in Held v State of Montana by the Montana First Judicial District Court, in which 16 youth plaintiffs successfully argued that provisions within the state energy policy and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. As the first climate case in the USA to be brought based on a constitutional right to a healthy environment, it has received considerable attention and is being hailed as a landmark victory. This analysis examines the case in the context of recent trends in climate change litigation and argues that whilst the decision is indeed noteworthy, the circumstances that led to the decision make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful claims will follow in the USA. Nevertheless, the case could mark a so-called ‘constitutional rights turn’ in climate litigation, as the case bolsters support for stronger protections for environmental rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqae017\",\"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":"Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqae017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Held v State of Montana: A Constitutional Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?
This analysis examines the decision in Held v State of Montana by the Montana First Judicial District Court, in which 16 youth plaintiffs successfully argued that provisions within the state energy policy and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. As the first climate case in the USA to be brought based on a constitutional right to a healthy environment, it has received considerable attention and is being hailed as a landmark victory. This analysis examines the case in the context of recent trends in climate change litigation and argues that whilst the decision is indeed noteworthy, the circumstances that led to the decision make it unlikely that a wave of similarly successful claims will follow in the USA. Nevertheless, the case could mark a so-called ‘constitutional rights turn’ in climate litigation, as the case bolsters support for stronger protections for environmental rights.
期刊介绍:
Condensing essential information into just three issues a year, the Journal of Environmental Law has become an authoritative source of informed analysis for all those who have any dealings in this vital field of legal study. It exists primarily for academics and legal practitioners, but should also prove accessible for all other groups concerned with the environment, from scientists to planners. The journal offers major articles on a wide variety of topics, refereed and written to the highest standards, providing innovative and authoritative appraisals of current and emerging concepts, policies, and practice. It includes: -An analysis section, providing detailed analysis of current case law and legislative and policy developments -An annual review of significant UK, European Court of Justice, and international law cases -A substantial book reviews section