Page - 182 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 182 -
Text of the Page - 182 -
182 F.SimlingerandB.Mayer
Leghari, are often limited to the territory of the state: they do not usually provide
ground for a Court to recognise the obligation of a state to address L&Dbeyond
itsownjurisdiction. International law,on theotherhand,cansometimesbe invoked
before domestic courts in support of public litigation, as illustrated in the case of
Urgenda,althoughnationalcourtsareoftenreluctant toimplement international law
obligations.
7.2.2 PrivateLawLitigation
Privatelawlitigationshedslightontheobligationsofanyperson(individualorgroup
grantedlegalpersonalitywithinaparticular legalsystem)towardsanother.Courts in
commonlawjurisdictionsapplyvariousconceptsof“tort”suchasnuisance,trespass,
ora risk-basedregimeofstrict liability.Bycontrast, courts incivil lawjurisdictions
refer to particular provisions of their respective Civil Code on “extra-contractual
responsibility.” Absent more specific statutory developments, Courts in civil law
jurisdictionscould theoreticallyplayanextensive role in interpretingsuchprinciple
of responsibility to thecontextof climatechange.
Private law litigation onL&Dface amyriad of hurdles and, to date,most have
beenunsuccessful.Afirsthurdle is the issueofattribution. It isgenerally impossible
toattributeacertainclimatic event tohuman inducedclimatechange, andcertainly
not to the emissions of a specific person or entity.While it is beyond doubt that
GHGemissions, as a general proposition, cause harm, it is currently impossible to
tracespecificdamages tocertainemitters.Most legalsystemsrequireadirectcausal
relation for damages to be granted, but climate science only offers probabilistic
attribution(seee.g.Palletal.2016).Someauthorshavesuggestedthatcourtsshould
applyamodifiedgeneralcausationtestashavesometimesbeendevelopedon“toxic
tort cases” (Grossman 2003: 23). It would accordingly be sufficient to prove that
GHG emissions are generally capable of causing damages and that a causal link
between action and damage is probable thus render the requirement to attribute a
specific climatic event to the emissions of a specific person or entity unnecessary
(Grossman2003).
Asecondhurdle is thedeferenceof the courts toother branchesof government.
Courtshaveusuallybeenreluctanttotouchmatterswhichrequireafine-tunedbalance
between different interests, especiallywhen the executive and the legislature have
alreadyseizedthemselvesof thematter.Theseconcernsmaybephrasedintheterms
of the “political question doctrine” in theUnitedStates or inmore or less implicit
considerations of the “justiciability” of disputes brought before domestic courts in
other jurisdictions. This is an even greater obstacle in civil law countries, where
courts areposited to simplyapply the lawcreatedby the legislativebranch.
InAmericanElectricPowerCo. v.Connecticut theUSSupremeCourt regarded
the allegednuisanceconstitutedby thegreenhousegas emissionsoffiveUSpower
utilities. Itunanimously rejected theclaimin2011on theground that the regulation
ofgreenhousegasemissionsbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyprecludedthe
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Title
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Subtitle
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Authors
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Publisher
- Springer Open
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 580
- Keywords
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Categories
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima