| Title | STANDING IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AFTER URGENDA, JULIANA AND COVID-19 CRISES: WHO SHOULD FORCE GOVERNMENTS TO ACT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE? |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 63663 |
| Authors | Drenovak-Ivanovic, M |
| Title | STANDING IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AFTER URGENDA, JULIANA AND COVID-19 CRISES: WHO SHOULD FORCE GOVERNMENTS TO ACT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE? |
| Year | 2020 |
| Published | |
| Abstract | Teaching environmental law and climate change issues one may open a number of questions on relations between environmental protection, governmental duties and public rights, starting with: has a government duty to care and maintain a dissent environment and stable climate conditions?; what is a ground for governmental decision-making on actions threatening sustainability of the climate conditions?; where is the beginning and the end of the responsibility of an individual or of an country? The article outlines the elements that provide the criteria under which one may discus on whether it should be the court to force the government to act or should it be a parliament to set laws initiating actions to protect citizens and their human rights from irreversible climate change? The article points out the recent cases State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (court decision from December 2019) and Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana v. USA (court decision from January 2020). In Urgenda, the court concerned questions: whether the Netherlands is obliged to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from its soil by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990, whether the court can order the State to do so and whether the government is bound to protect human rights in climate crisis? In Juliana, a group of children between the ages of eight and nineteen filed suit against the federal government, claiming that the government violated their constitutional rights by causing dangerous carbon dioxide concentrations. Although the court had found the injury and evidence on causation between government's actions and climate crisis, it found a lack of redressability. The aim of the article is to examine if the concepts of European Green Deal presented on January 2019 by the Von der Leyen Commission to enshrine the 2050 climate neutrality target into life are in line with conclusions from analysed cases and lessons learned from COVID-19 crisis. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
63286
|
Viola, P Towards The European Climate Law: Scientific Assessments And The Future Legal Approaches Of The Eu Member States(2021) | |
| 63396
|
de las Heras, BP European Climate Law(s): Assessing the Legal Path to Climate Neutrality(2021)Romanian Journal Of European Affairs, 21, 2 | |
| 62948
|
Viola, P The scientific contribution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the European Green Deal: introduction to the European Climate Law(2020)A&C-Revista De Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, 20, 81 | |
| 75178
|
Sritharan, ES The Ethics Of Climate Change, Climate Policy And Climate Justice(2023)Lexonomica, 15, 2 | |
| 64305
|
Ammann, O; Boussat, A The Participation of Civil Society in European Union Environmental Law-Making Processes: A Critical Assessment of the European Commission's Consultations in Connection with the European Climate Law(2023)European Journal Of Risk Regulation, 14, 2 | |
| 65109
|
Lazorcáková, T Possibilities And Approaches Of The European Court Of Human Rights And Court Of Justice Of The European Union In Fundamental Rights Protection In The Context Of Environmental Litigation(2023)Bratislava Law Review, 7.0, 2 | |
| 63881
|
Schwarte, C EU Climate Policy under the Paris Agreement(2021)Climate Law, 11, 2 |