Abstract
The level of emissions reduction in a specific country, and the pathways for achieving those reductions, are primarily political questions. Courts are tasked with controlling the lawfulness of governmental decision-making, such as regarding the punishment of non-compliant emitters. However, given the complexity and uncertainty in climate science, and the many interests affected by emissions reduction policies, courts are not equipped to replace political decision-making. While judicial adjudication based on human rights is important to protect citizens against the harmful effects of climate change, it becomes questionable when judges approve claims prescribing economy-wide emissions reduction targets. An activist international court may see rebound effects weakening its power, including countries withdrawing from its jurisdiction.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Contemporary Climate Change Debates |
| Subtitle of host publication | A student primer |
| Editors | M. Hulme |
| Pages | 197-206 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 978-04-2944-625-2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Judges should remain judges and should not become scientists or policymakers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver