Abstract
Climate change litigation has emerged as a powerful tool as societies steer towards sustainable development. Although the litigation mainly takes place in domestic courts, the implications can be seen as global as specific climate rulings influence courts across national borders. However, while the phenomenon of judicialization is well-known in the social sciences, relatively few have studied issues of legitimacy that arise as climate politics move into courts. A comparatively large part of climate cases have appeared in the United States. This article presents a research plan for a study of judges’ opinions and dissents in the United States, regarding the justiciability of strategic climate cases. The purpose is to empirically study how judges navigate a perceived normative conflict—between the litigation and an overarching ideal of separation of powers—in a system marked by checks and balances.
Highlights
These cases belong to a category that can be referred to as strategic climate cases
Climate change litigation appears as a potentially powerful tool as societies steer towards sustainable development
Vanhala (2019), research on climate change litigation has proliferated in relation to rulings in high-profile cases such as Massachusetts v EPA (2007) and Urgenda (2015) [5]
Summary
Climate Litigation in the Eyes of U.S. Judges. Pointing to climate-change-related injury, citizens and environmental groups are increasingly turning to courts in order to take legal action against their governments These cases belong to a category that can be referred to as strategic climate cases. In what has been described as the “strongest” climate ruling so far, the State was ordered to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020, compared to levels in 1990 Given this development, climate change litigation appears as a potentially powerful tool as societies steer towards sustainable development. I aim to treat climate litigation that purports to change government policy, e.g., by reference to fundamental rights–so-called “strategic” climate litigation Views critical of such litigation are often based on the ideal of separation of powers in constitutional democracies. The project’s findings may be of use for policy-makers and an interested public, including environmental organizations, business representatives, diplomats and lawyers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
