Abstract

AbstractThe Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) in Germany has issued a landmark ruling with regard to climate change. It opens its jurisprudence for a new dimension of human rights: The intertemporal guarantee of freedom. It argues that the legislature has violated fundamental rights by failing to take sufficient precautionary measures today for the time after 2030. The emissions allowed in the Federal Climate Change Act until 2030 will nearly exhaust Germany’s remaining CO2 budget. After 2030, drastic legislative measures, which curtail nearly all activities that emit CO2, might be necessary. If emission reductions are delayed until 2030, the costs of climate protection will increase for future generations, and with it the risk that emission reductions will only be possible at the price of serious losses of freedom. Therefore, the legislature needs to act now and take the time after 2030 into consideration. The order might eventually influence climate change litigation in other areas of the world. The article will demonstrate the main arguments of the FCC order. The combat of climate change is an international task, which cannot be solved by Germany alone. The FCC takes this fact to some extent into account. It argues for international cooperation to combat climate change. Unfortunately, it does not fully evolve a jurisprudence which takes the core principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) seriously and addresses the questions of equity. The CBDR principle is one of the core principles which should solve the North-South divide and which should bring together the efforts of rich as well as poor countries to combat climate change. It is enshrined in the Paris Agreement. The FCC engages with this principle on the surface but misses the opportunity to truly and deeply engage.

Highlights

  • Background and Origins of the NorthSouth DivideThe birth of international environmental law was the Stockholm conference in 1972

  • The emissions allowed in the Federal Climate Change Act until 2030 will nearly exhaust Germany’s remaining CO2 budget

  • If emission reductions are delayed until 2030, the costs of climate protection will increase for future generations, and with it the risk that emission reductions will only be possible at the price of serious losses of freedom

Read more

Summary

The New Dimension of Human Rights in the Climate Protection Order of the FCC

As the FCC has not played an active role in climate litigation or environmental litigation generally, the decision came as a mostly welcome surprise for the legal community in Germany. In its decision, the FCC examined whether the Federal Climate Change Act violated the Basic Law. The legal basis of the Act is the obligation under the Paris Agreement to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degree Celsiusand preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels so as to minimize the effects of worldwide climate change, as well as the commitment made by the Federal Republic of Germany to pursue the long-term goal of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050. The defendants mainly responded that by enacting the Federal Climate Act they have fulfilled their duty to protect They further argue that the national remaining CO2 budget is not binding upon the German state. Due to all the uncertainty regarding the case within German legal discourse, this section will only sum up the main line of the arguments in this case, while avoiding any judgement

Duties of Protection – Schutzpflichten
Intertemporal Guarantee of Freedom
The North-South-Divide in International Climate Change Law
Background and Origins of the North-South Divide
The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility
CBDR in the Paris Agreement
The FCC Climate Protection Order and the North-South Divide
Article 20: A Basic Law and Germanys remaining CO2 Budget
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call