Jana Viktoria Nysten Can You Sue Away Climate Change?

About this book

Climate change litigation has been on the rise in recent years and the number of cases keeps increasing. Accordingly, a diverse – and partly heated - discussion has emerged in the legal literature: some argue that it could help fix the legal framework where political consent is lacking to enact respective laws or negotiate respective treaties, while others point to alleged limitations, such as the competences of courts in the different legal systems and the idea of separation of powers. Hence, this book examines what climate change litigation can really contribute to the development of the global governance for GHG emissions reductions.

The book is structured in three parts: Part I examines whether there are gaps in the legal framework for GHG emissions reductions, i.e. whether there are problems that would better be solved in the quest to limit climate change. Part II looks at a number of case studies in which plaintiffs have tried to “sue away” climate change, by bringing different causes of actions before different courts. Those include cases against states before international courts and tribunals, cases against the executive and legislative branches of states in national courts as well as cases against private individuals, normally companies. In part III, the alleged limitations of climate change litigation are discussed: Is it true that the principle of state sovereignty limits international courts and tribunals when hearing and deciding such cases? How does the notion of separation of powers impact national courts? Can judges deal with the complexities of climate science?

Overall, this book shows that there is no one size fits all answer to the question of the potential of climate change litigation. There are too many variables, such as the type of litigation, including the laws on which they are based, but also the role allocated to courts in a jurisdiction. However, it establishes a framework within which the potential of past and future climate change litigation can be examined. Therefore, it intentionally stays on a higher level of abstraction, to facilitate transferability of its findings and not lose the reader in too many details. Contrary to several other voices in the legal debate, the author does not propose a certain approach or position towards climate change litigation, and the book is not normative in nature.