司法阶段的科学:壳牌公司气候法庭案件中有争议的情景

IF 5.2 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Lisette van Beek , Jeroen Oomen , Haomiao Du
{"title":"司法阶段的科学:壳牌公司气候法庭案件中有争议的情景","authors":"Lisette van Beek ,&nbsp;Jeroen Oomen ,&nbsp;Haomiao Du","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate litigation is growing and increasingly targets corporate actors. Scientific evidence is crucial in climate court cases, for instance to determine plaintiffs’ standing to sue or the attribution of climate impacts to the defendants’ actions. However, it remains unknown how scientific expertise influences court decisions, what forms of expertise are used, how evidence is contested, and how judges engage with this expertise. We address this gap by studying the contestation of scientific evidence in the Dutch climate case Milieudefensie cs v. Royal Dutch Shell. This case is notable for its heavy reliance on model projections, most notably those presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this paper, we take a dramaturgical approach to reconstruct how litigants contested scenario projections. Drawing on Hilgartner’s (2000) notion of stage management, we observe how plaintiffs and defendants deployed various dramatic techniques to enact and dispute the credibility and legitimacy of scenarios. The scenarios were most significantly contested by Shell, challenging both their credibility and relevance. Milieudefensie cs mainly questioned the scenarios' normative foundations. The case thereby signals that the role of science in climate politics is shifting, with the court room becoming increasingly important as a ‘stage’ where climate science is mobilised and contested. We conclude by reflecting on the shifting dynamics of climate politics; the position of the IPCC as crucial source of evidence in climate litigation, the limitations of models as key resource for climate litigation, and the emerging role of judges as gatekeepers of climate science.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 104210"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science on the judicial stage: Contested scenarios in the climate court case against Shell\",\"authors\":\"Lisette van Beek ,&nbsp;Jeroen Oomen ,&nbsp;Haomiao Du\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Climate litigation is growing and increasingly targets corporate actors. Scientific evidence is crucial in climate court cases, for instance to determine plaintiffs’ standing to sue or the attribution of climate impacts to the defendants’ actions. However, it remains unknown how scientific expertise influences court decisions, what forms of expertise are used, how evidence is contested, and how judges engage with this expertise. We address this gap by studying the contestation of scientific evidence in the Dutch climate case Milieudefensie cs v. Royal Dutch Shell. This case is notable for its heavy reliance on model projections, most notably those presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this paper, we take a dramaturgical approach to reconstruct how litigants contested scenario projections. Drawing on Hilgartner’s (2000) notion of stage management, we observe how plaintiffs and defendants deployed various dramatic techniques to enact and dispute the credibility and legitimacy of scenarios. The scenarios were most significantly contested by Shell, challenging both their credibility and relevance. Milieudefensie cs mainly questioned the scenarios' normative foundations. The case thereby signals that the role of science in climate politics is shifting, with the court room becoming increasingly important as a ‘stage’ where climate science is mobilised and contested. We conclude by reflecting on the shifting dynamics of climate politics; the position of the IPCC as crucial source of evidence in climate litigation, the limitations of models as key resource for climate litigation, and the emerging role of judges as gatekeepers of climate science.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"172 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002266\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002266","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

气候诉讼越来越多,而且越来越多地以企业行为者为目标。在气候法庭案件中,科学证据至关重要,例如,确定原告的起诉资格或将气候影响归因于被告的行为。然而,目前尚不清楚科学专业知识如何影响法院判决,使用何种形式的专业知识,如何对证据提出质疑,以及法官如何利用这些专业知识。我们通过研究荷兰气候案例milieudefensics诉荷兰皇家壳牌(Royal Dutch Shell)中科学证据的争议来解决这一差距。值得注意的是,这种情况严重依赖于模型预测,尤其是政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)提出的模型预测。在本文中,我们采取戏剧的方法来重建诉讼当事人如何争夺情景预测。根据Hilgartner(2000)的舞台管理概念,我们观察了原告和被告如何运用各种戏剧技巧来制定和争论场景的可信度和合法性。壳牌对这些设想提出了最强烈的质疑,对其可信度和相关性提出了挑战。军事防御学主要质疑情景的规范基础。因此,这个案例表明,科学在气候政治中的作用正在发生变化,法庭作为一个动员和争论气候科学的“舞台”变得越来越重要。最后,我们反思了气候政治不断变化的动态;IPCC在气候诉讼中作为关键证据来源的地位,模型作为气候诉讼关键资源的局限性,以及法官作为气候科学看门人的新角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Science on the judicial stage: Contested scenarios in the climate court case against Shell
Climate litigation is growing and increasingly targets corporate actors. Scientific evidence is crucial in climate court cases, for instance to determine plaintiffs’ standing to sue or the attribution of climate impacts to the defendants’ actions. However, it remains unknown how scientific expertise influences court decisions, what forms of expertise are used, how evidence is contested, and how judges engage with this expertise. We address this gap by studying the contestation of scientific evidence in the Dutch climate case Milieudefensie cs v. Royal Dutch Shell. This case is notable for its heavy reliance on model projections, most notably those presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this paper, we take a dramaturgical approach to reconstruct how litigants contested scenario projections. Drawing on Hilgartner’s (2000) notion of stage management, we observe how plaintiffs and defendants deployed various dramatic techniques to enact and dispute the credibility and legitimacy of scenarios. The scenarios were most significantly contested by Shell, challenging both their credibility and relevance. Milieudefensie cs mainly questioned the scenarios' normative foundations. The case thereby signals that the role of science in climate politics is shifting, with the court room becoming increasingly important as a ‘stage’ where climate science is mobilised and contested. We conclude by reflecting on the shifting dynamics of climate politics; the position of the IPCC as crucial source of evidence in climate litigation, the limitations of models as key resource for climate litigation, and the emerging role of judges as gatekeepers of climate science.
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
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信