Climate change litigation before domestic courts is not a new phenomenon but new trends have started to emerge in recent years. Among these trends, the use of human rights law is gaining increasing importance as a means to hold government and corporations accountable for climate change harms. Although different scholars have highlighted the potential of using human rights arguments in climate change cases, there seems to be a limited understanding of their true effectiveness in shaping climate law and policies globally. The present article, drawing on a robust literature concerning the relationship between climate change and human rights looks towards this direction and is aimed particularly at establishing how human rights arguments have been used before the courts, identifying two main strategies and possible limitations in pursuing this kind of instrument in a climate change case. It attempts to identify and classify the ways in which human rights obligations are invoked by various plaintiffs before domestic courts with the ultimate aim of assessing the judges' receptivity to these kind of arguments. The ultimate goal is to provide a brief overview concerning the inherent difficulties in using human rights law when submitting a legal complaint about climate change that could constitute a starting point for further research on this topic.
Identifying Achilles’ heels: an assessment of the effectiveness of human rights law in climate change litigation / Vona, Fabrizio. - (2020). (Intervento presentato al convegno Promise Institute Annual Symposium - Human Rights and the Climate Crisis (Co-sponsored by Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs), UCLA School of Law, 2020 tenutosi a Los Angeles; Stati Uniti).
Identifying Achilles’ heels: an assessment of the effectiveness of human rights law in climate change litigation
Vona, Fabrizio
2020
Abstract
Climate change litigation before domestic courts is not a new phenomenon but new trends have started to emerge in recent years. Among these trends, the use of human rights law is gaining increasing importance as a means to hold government and corporations accountable for climate change harms. Although different scholars have highlighted the potential of using human rights arguments in climate change cases, there seems to be a limited understanding of their true effectiveness in shaping climate law and policies globally. The present article, drawing on a robust literature concerning the relationship between climate change and human rights looks towards this direction and is aimed particularly at establishing how human rights arguments have been used before the courts, identifying two main strategies and possible limitations in pursuing this kind of instrument in a climate change case. It attempts to identify and classify the ways in which human rights obligations are invoked by various plaintiffs before domestic courts with the ultimate aim of assessing the judges' receptivity to these kind of arguments. The ultimate goal is to provide a brief overview concerning the inherent difficulties in using human rights law when submitting a legal complaint about climate change that could constitute a starting point for further research on this topic.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
