Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection?
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection? / Glinski, Carola.
In: European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, Vol. 10, No. 3-4, 2023, p. 416-437.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
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