肯尼亚不断演变的地点标准和因果关系要求:气候变化诉讼的预防性转向?

Q3 Social Sciences
L. Omuko-Jung
{"title":"肯尼亚不断演变的地点标准和因果关系要求:气候变化诉讼的预防性转向?","authors":"L. Omuko-Jung","doi":"10.21552/cclr/2021/2/8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recognised challenge for climate litigation is the fundamental incompatibility between the climate change problem and legal systems’ ability to hold critical players accountable. Locus standi and causation are critical stumbling blocks in the quest for climate justice. In Kenya, the requirements for locus standi and causation in public interest environmental litigation have been evolving. This article explores this evolution, showing three ways in which this creates opportunities for climate litigation. Firstly, there is no need to show particularised injury, which allows any person to sue for climate-related actions or inactions. Secondly, liability routes have been created that allow litigants to avoid the restrictive causation requirements, so that the plaintiff would not have to show any injury, let alone link harms to emissions from specific entities or to inaction. Thirdly, the courts take a precautionary approach which then shifts the burden of proof to the defendants, who are required to show that their activities or inaction do not pose a threat of serious or irreversible damage. These recent developments provide the needed legal opportunities for climate litigation and could make Kenya a potential hotspot for future climate change cases.","PeriodicalId":52307,"journal":{"name":"Carbon and Climate Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evolving Locus Standi and Causation Requirements in Kenya: A Precautionary Turn for Climate Change Litigation?\",\"authors\":\"L. Omuko-Jung\",\"doi\":\"10.21552/cclr/2021/2/8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A recognised challenge for climate litigation is the fundamental incompatibility between the climate change problem and legal systems’ ability to hold critical players accountable. Locus standi and causation are critical stumbling blocks in the quest for climate justice. In Kenya, the requirements for locus standi and causation in public interest environmental litigation have been evolving. This article explores this evolution, showing three ways in which this creates opportunities for climate litigation. Firstly, there is no need to show particularised injury, which allows any person to sue for climate-related actions or inactions. Secondly, liability routes have been created that allow litigants to avoid the restrictive causation requirements, so that the plaintiff would not have to show any injury, let alone link harms to emissions from specific entities or to inaction. Thirdly, the courts take a precautionary approach which then shifts the burden of proof to the defendants, who are required to show that their activities or inaction do not pose a threat of serious or irreversible damage. These recent developments provide the needed legal opportunities for climate litigation and could make Kenya a potential hotspot for future climate change cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Carbon and Climate Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Carbon and Climate Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2021/2/8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Carbon and Climate Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2021/2/8","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: 1

摘要

气候诉讼面临的一个公认的挑战是,气候变化问题与法律体系追究关键参与者责任的能力之间存在根本的不相容。地点立场和因果关系是寻求气候正义的关键障碍。在肯尼亚,公益环境诉讼中对立场和因果关系的要求一直在演变。本文探讨了这一演变,展示了这为气候诉讼创造机会的三种方式。首先,不需要证明具体的伤害,这使得任何人都可以就与气候相关的行为或不作为提起诉讼。其次,已经建立了责任途径,使诉讼当事人能够避免限制性的因果关系要求,因此原告不必证明任何损害,更不用说将损害与特定实体的排放或不作为联系起来。第三,法院采取预防措施,然后将举证责任转移给被告,被告必须证明其活动或不作为不会构成严重或不可逆转损害的威胁。这些最近的发展为气候诉讼提供了必要的法律机会,并可能使肯尼亚成为未来气候变化案件的潜在热点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Evolving Locus Standi and Causation Requirements in Kenya: A Precautionary Turn for Climate Change Litigation?
A recognised challenge for climate litigation is the fundamental incompatibility between the climate change problem and legal systems’ ability to hold critical players accountable. Locus standi and causation are critical stumbling blocks in the quest for climate justice. In Kenya, the requirements for locus standi and causation in public interest environmental litigation have been evolving. This article explores this evolution, showing three ways in which this creates opportunities for climate litigation. Firstly, there is no need to show particularised injury, which allows any person to sue for climate-related actions or inactions. Secondly, liability routes have been created that allow litigants to avoid the restrictive causation requirements, so that the plaintiff would not have to show any injury, let alone link harms to emissions from specific entities or to inaction. Thirdly, the courts take a precautionary approach which then shifts the burden of proof to the defendants, who are required to show that their activities or inaction do not pose a threat of serious or irreversible damage. These recent developments provide the needed legal opportunities for climate litigation and could make Kenya a potential hotspot for future climate change cases.
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
Carbon and Climate Law Review
Carbon and Climate Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
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