Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection? / Glinski, Carola.

I: European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, Bind 10, Nr. 3-4, 2023, s. 416-437.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Glinski, C 2023, 'Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?', European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, bind 10, nr. 3-4, s. 416-437. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-bja10062

APA

Glinski, C. (2023). Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection? European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 10(3-4), 416-437. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-bja10062

Vancouver

Glinski C. Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection? European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance. 2023;10(3-4):416-437. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-bja10062

Author

Glinski, Carola. / Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?. I: European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance. 2023 ; Bind 10, Nr. 3-4. s. 416-437.

Bibtex

@article{051115702ccb49af978f24828d9f5ea9,
title = "Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?",
abstract = "In recent years, constitutional courts and supreme courts have handed down important decisions on (potentially) insufficient climate protection regulation. This article analyses the climate decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court and discusses its application to biodiversity protection. It shows that despite of clarifications related to the State{\textquoteright}s constitutional duty to protect citizens, including future generations, against the risks of climate change, the application of the decision to other urgent environmental problems remains unclear. The German standard of review grants the legislator considerable leeway in case of remaining scientific uncertainty and still relies on a clear quantification of protection needs. In contrast, the Urgenda ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court shows the way how in case of scientific uncertainty (potentially insufficient) environmental protection can be judicially reviewed while safeguarding the margin of appreciation of the legislator at the same time.",
author = "Carola Glinski",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1163/22134514-bja10062",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "416--437",
journal = "European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance",
issn = "2213-4506",
publisher = "Brill | Nijhoff",
number = "3-4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?

AU - Glinski, Carola

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - In recent years, constitutional courts and supreme courts have handed down important decisions on (potentially) insufficient climate protection regulation. This article analyses the climate decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court and discusses its application to biodiversity protection. It shows that despite of clarifications related to the State’s constitutional duty to protect citizens, including future generations, against the risks of climate change, the application of the decision to other urgent environmental problems remains unclear. The German standard of review grants the legislator considerable leeway in case of remaining scientific uncertainty and still relies on a clear quantification of protection needs. In contrast, the Urgenda ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court shows the way how in case of scientific uncertainty (potentially insufficient) environmental protection can be judicially reviewed while safeguarding the margin of appreciation of the legislator at the same time.

AB - In recent years, constitutional courts and supreme courts have handed down important decisions on (potentially) insufficient climate protection regulation. This article analyses the climate decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court and discusses its application to biodiversity protection. It shows that despite of clarifications related to the State’s constitutional duty to protect citizens, including future generations, against the risks of climate change, the application of the decision to other urgent environmental problems remains unclear. The German standard of review grants the legislator considerable leeway in case of remaining scientific uncertainty and still relies on a clear quantification of protection needs. In contrast, the Urgenda ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court shows the way how in case of scientific uncertainty (potentially insufficient) environmental protection can be judicially reviewed while safeguarding the margin of appreciation of the legislator at the same time.

U2 - 10.1163/22134514-bja10062

DO - 10.1163/22134514-bja10062

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

SP - 416

EP - 437

JO - European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance

JF - European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance

SN - 2213-4506

IS - 3-4

ER -

ID: 392441795