Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The Role of the Judiciary in Climate Change Action - A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Jurisprudence

Keivanlo, Sanna LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Årtionden efter att internationella klimatförhandlingar inleddes tampas världen fortfarande med den grundläggande frågeställningen hur klimatåtgärder skall mobiliseras. Samtidigt stiger kostnaderna till följd av vår passivitet. Det har visat sig nästintill omöjligt för det internationella samfundet att göra upp om ett gemensamt, bindande regelverk för klimatpåverkan. Även på regional och lokal nivå lyser både bindande regleringar och effektiva marknadsåtgärder med sin frånvaro.
Parallellt med denna oförmåga, eller ovilja att vidta åtgärder, utgör domstolar runt om i världen spelrum för allt fler klimatrelaterade tvister. Offentliga såväl som privata aktörer söker använda olika rättsliga medel för att stimulera, eller i vissa fall,... (More)
Årtionden efter att internationella klimatförhandlingar inleddes tampas världen fortfarande med den grundläggande frågeställningen hur klimatåtgärder skall mobiliseras. Samtidigt stiger kostnaderna till följd av vår passivitet. Det har visat sig nästintill omöjligt för det internationella samfundet att göra upp om ett gemensamt, bindande regelverk för klimatpåverkan. Även på regional och lokal nivå lyser både bindande regleringar och effektiva marknadsåtgärder med sin frånvaro.
Parallellt med denna oförmåga, eller ovilja att vidta åtgärder, utgör domstolar runt om i världen spelrum för allt fler klimatrelaterade tvister. Offentliga såväl som privata aktörer söker använda olika rättsliga medel för att stimulera, eller i vissa fall, blockera, klimatåtgärder. Europeiska unionens domstol avgjorde 2010 det så kallade ATAA-fallet, vari ett antal flygbolag ifrågasatt giltigheten i ett EU-direktiv som ålägger utsläppsrätter för flygindustrin. Fallet väckte grundläggande frågor om EU:s möjligheter att såsom en regional beslutsfattare ensidigt besluta om klimatåtgärder med inverkningar långt utanför EU:s eget territorium.
USA:s Högsta Domstol avgjorde 2007 och 2011 två relaterade fall, Massachusetts respektive AEP. Sökande i båda dessa fall efterfrågade klimatåtgärder på nationell nivå.
Samtliga dessa fall rör frågan om hur klimatåtgärder skall mobiliseras. Den här uppsatsen undersöker vilken roll högre domstolar har i att legitimisera och främja klimatåtgärder. En jämförelse av de tre fallen belyser hur likheter och skillnader i EU och USA påverkar domstolarnas roll i en klimatkontext. Den fokuserar på ett antal hinder mot rättslig prövning som aktualiserats i fallen – den så kallade ’displacement’-doktrinen och frågor om gränsdragningar mellan politiska och rättsliga frågor.
Genom att legitimisera och främja en vis typ av åtgärder verkar domstolarna för att bryta det ihållande politiska stillestånd som råder i debatten om hur vi ska förhindra klimatförändringar. (Less)
Abstract
Several decades after the initiation of international climate change negotiations, the world still struggles with the issue of how to mobilize climate action. In the meantime, the costs of inaction rise to unprecedented heights. It has proven more than difficult – even impossible for the international society to agree upon a binding common framework, and also on regional and local levels are regulatory measures, as well as persuasive voluntary measures conspicuous by their absence.
Simultaneous to this incapacity or unwillingness to act, courts around the world are receiving an increasing amount of climate-related claims on their tables. Public as well as private parties are testing different legal instruments to gain their cause,... (More)
Several decades after the initiation of international climate change negotiations, the world still struggles with the issue of how to mobilize climate action. In the meantime, the costs of inaction rise to unprecedented heights. It has proven more than difficult – even impossible for the international society to agree upon a binding common framework, and also on regional and local levels are regulatory measures, as well as persuasive voluntary measures conspicuous by their absence.
Simultaneous to this incapacity or unwillingness to act, courts around the world are receiving an increasing amount of climate-related claims on their tables. Public as well as private parties are testing different legal instruments to gain their cause, whether this is to encourage, or to block climate change regulations.
The European Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the controversial, highly debated Air Transport Association of America case, where a number of airlines challenged the validity of the EU scheme imposing emission allowances on the aviation industry. This case raised fundamental questions concerning the ability of the EU, a regional decision-maker, to take unilateral action with impacts reaching far beyond the external borders of the Union.
The US Supreme Court has ruled on two closely interlinked cases – that of Massachusetts and AEP, where the applicants sought to mobilize climate change action on a national level.
This thesis investigates the role of the high Courts in legitimizing and promoting climate change action. The comparison will highlight how the Courts have identified and legitimized specific actors, but also analyze how similarities and dissimilarities in the separate legal systems will impact on the role of the judiciary in the climate change context. It will focus on some specific barriers to judicial review brought to the fore in the cases – primarily displacement and issues of non-justiciable political question – as these issues are closely related to the question of the courts’ role in climate change action.
By legitimizing and encouraging some type of action, the Courts may serve to break the longstanding political deadlock on climate change. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Keivanlo, Sanna LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, EU law, comparative law, komparativ rätt
language
English
id
3802779
date added to LUP
2013-08-02 07:57:45
date last changed
2017-01-27 15:56:10
@misc{3802779,
  abstract     = {Several decades after the initiation of international climate change negotiations, the world still struggles with the issue of how to mobilize climate action. In the meantime, the costs of inaction rise to unprecedented heights. It has proven more than difficult – even impossible for the international society to agree upon a binding common framework, and also on regional and local levels are regulatory measures, as well as persuasive voluntary measures conspicuous by their absence. 
	Simultaneous to this incapacity or unwillingness to act, courts around the world are receiving an increasing amount of climate-related claims on their tables. Public as well as private parties are testing different legal instruments to gain their cause, whether this is to encourage, or to block climate change regulations. 
	The European Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the controversial, highly debated Air Transport Association of America case, where a number of airlines challenged the validity of the EU scheme imposing emission allowances on the aviation industry. This case raised fundamental questions concerning the ability of the EU, a regional decision-maker, to take unilateral action with impacts reaching far beyond the external borders of the Union. 
	The US Supreme Court has ruled on two closely interlinked cases – that of Massachusetts and AEP, where the applicants sought to mobilize climate change action on a national level.
	This thesis investigates the role of the high Courts in legitimizing and promoting climate change action. The comparison will highlight how the Courts have identified and legitimized specific actors, but also analyze how similarities and dissimilarities in the separate legal systems will impact on the role of the judiciary in the climate change context. It will focus on some specific barriers to judicial review brought to the fore in the cases – primarily displacement and issues of non-justiciable political question – as these issues are closely related to the question of the courts’ role in climate change action.
	By legitimizing and encouraging some type of action, the Courts may serve to break the longstanding political deadlock on climate change.},
  author       = {Keivanlo, Sanna},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt,EU law,comparative law,komparativ rätt},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {The Role of the Judiciary in Climate Change Action - A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Jurisprudence},
  year         = {2013},
}