{"title":"新型气候侵权?新西兰上诉法院史密斯诉恒天然合作集团有限公司等案的判决","authors":"C. Foster","doi":"10.1177/14614529221111851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Smith v Fonterra the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal struck out all causes of action in proceedings seeking orders that seven New Zealand companies cease direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 grounded in the three distinct claims of negligence, public nuisance and a proposed novel tort referred to as “breach of duty”. The Court of Appeal's judgment is under appeal before the New Zealand Supreme Court. This commentary seeks to open up discussion around the reasons given for the various aspects of the judgment. In particular the commentary puts the view that there is scope for the creation of a novel common law climate tort. This tort must be forward-looking and preventive in orientation and may differ fundamentally from existing torts.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"98 1","pages":"224 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel climate tort? The New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited and others\",\"authors\":\"C. Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614529221111851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Smith v Fonterra the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal struck out all causes of action in proceedings seeking orders that seven New Zealand companies cease direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 grounded in the three distinct claims of negligence, public nuisance and a proposed novel tort referred to as “breach of duty”. The Court of Appeal's judgment is under appeal before the New Zealand Supreme Court. This commentary seeks to open up discussion around the reasons given for the various aspects of the judgment. In particular the commentary puts the view that there is scope for the creation of a novel common law climate tort. This tort must be forward-looking and preventive in orientation and may differ fundamentally from existing torts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"224 - 234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221111851\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221111851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在史密斯诉恒天然(Smith v . Fonterra)一案中,新西兰高等法院和上诉法院驳回了诉讼程序中的所有诉因,该诉讼要求7家新西兰公司在2030年前停止直接和间接温室气体排放,理由是疏忽、公共妨害和拟议中的新型侵权行为,即“违反职责”。上诉法院的判决正在向新西兰最高法院提出上诉。这篇评注试图围绕判决的各个方面给出的理由展开讨论。评注特别提出了一种观点,即存在创造一种新的普通法气候侵权的余地。这种侵权行为必须具有前瞻性和预防性,可能与现有侵权行为有根本区别。
Novel climate tort? The New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited and others
In Smith v Fonterra the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal struck out all causes of action in proceedings seeking orders that seven New Zealand companies cease direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 grounded in the three distinct claims of negligence, public nuisance and a proposed novel tort referred to as “breach of duty”. The Court of Appeal's judgment is under appeal before the New Zealand Supreme Court. This commentary seeks to open up discussion around the reasons given for the various aspects of the judgment. In particular the commentary puts the view that there is scope for the creation of a novel common law climate tort. This tort must be forward-looking and preventive in orientation and may differ fundamentally from existing torts.