Tort Law and Climate Change

Bonython, Wendy

doi:10.38127/uqlj.v40i3.6043

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…53 Indeed, the judgment is seen as a reaction to the legislature's 'failure to regulate'. 54 It goes beyond the scope of this brief response commentary to delve extensively into the legitimacy questions related hereto. 55 It is nevertheless worth noting that the Court had to make a decision, as refusal to render a decision can even lead to the prosecution of judges under Dutch legislation dating from 1823.…”

Section: Distribution Of Mitigation Efforts Across Various Sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Apology Leading to Dystopia: Or, Why Fuelling Climate Change Is Tortious

Burgers

2022

TEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This invited response commentary engages with Benoit Mayer's case comment, published in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, on the recent landmark decision by the District Court of The Hague (The Netherlands) of May 2021 in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. The Court ordered the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to reduce at least 45% of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared with 2019 levels. In this response commentary I build on and contrast Mayer's examination of how the Court arrived at this target. In doing so, I discuss the normativity of tort law compared with international law against the background of the ideas of Martti Koskenniemi. I conclude that the District Court legitimately qualified Shell's business plans as tortious. The specific reduction target is the result of civil procedural rules on evidence and the debate between the parties. In the light of this analysis, I respectfully reject Benoit Mayer's suggestion that sectoral practices should play a more significant role in determining corporate climate mitigation obligations. In my view, such an approach would be dangerously apologetic and lead to dystopian outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Distribution Of Mitigation Efforts Across Various Sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Apology Leading to Dystopia: Or, Why Fuelling Climate Change Is Tortious

Burgers

2022

TEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has also coincided with a small and often misunderstood (or merely commonly misreported) body of statutes and judicial decisions that specific domains are legal persons, so that their deemed needs must be considered in policy making and that through guardians (typically representative of the particular First Peoples intimately associated with the domain) must be able to litigate against harms that injure or threaten the domain. Most recently advocates have relied on that law in unsuccessful litigation regarding climate change, in other words seeking to force governments to address climate change that is global, attributable to human activity and existential because it has geopolitical impacts and large-scale species loss rather than inconvenience to property owners in Manhattan, Sydney, Venice and other coastal locations [13]. Signifiers and recognition of what they signify have consequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signs of Invisibility: Nonrecognition of Natural Environments as Persons in International and Domestic Law

Arnold

2022

Int J Semiot Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition of legal personhood in contemporary international and domestic law is a matter of signs. Those signs identify the existence of the legal person: human animals, corporations and states. They also identify facets of that personhood that situate the signified entities within webs of rights and responsibilities. Entities that are not legal persons lack agency and are thus invisible. They may be acted on but, absent the personhood that is communicated through a range of indicia and shapes both legal and popular understanding of powers and obligations, they lack standing in judicial fora. They are signified as entities that are the subjects of action by legal persons, for example exploitation through rights regarding natural resources or commodification of ‘wild’, companion and other non-human animals. They are also signified as members of a diverse class of non-persons such as ‘nature’ and ‘the environment’. This article explores the consequences of law’s signification of personhood and the natural world before asking whether we both should and could recognise domains such as specific rivers, forests or even Antarctica as a type of legal person. Recognition might acknowledge the salience of nature in the ontologies of colonised First Peoples. It might also underpin a global response to climate change as the existential crisis of the Anthropocene. In understanding law as a matter of signifiers and syntaxes the article cautions that ostensible recognition of some domains as persons has been aspirational rather than substantive, with observers misreading the sign as necessarily transforming power relationships. The article also cautions that personhood for nature or particular domains may be contrary to the self-determination of colonised First Peoples.

show abstract

“…But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. 3 As a developing country, which has just commenced industrialization over the past three decades and is heavily affected by climate change, despite various difficulties in resources, Vietnam has demonstrated responsibility and proactively implemented international commitments on climate change. 4 continues to change following the trends identified in the 2020 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Strategies and Challenges in Climate Change Mitigation in Vietnam: The Role of Non-Contractual Damages Compensation

Thien

2023

Vietnamese Journal of Legal Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vietnam is exploring numerous strategies to combat climate change, with a growing emphasis on enhancing national legal provisions, particularly those related to non-contractual environmental damage compensation. However, it is a matter of debate whether Vietnam’s current regulations on non-contractual damages effectively contribute to climate change mitigation. This article highlights both the impact and limitations of existing laws concerning environmental non-contractual damages. It argues for a legal approach that prioritizes preventing wrongful environmental acts over merely addressing their consequences. This article is structured into four parts: (i) An overview of climate change in Vietnam; (ii) Comparative analysis of non-contractual compensation for climate-related damages across various jurisdictions, (iii) An examination of Vietnam’s legal framework for non-contractual compensation due to environmental pollution; and (iv) Conclusions and recommendations.

show abstract

Tort Law and Climate Change

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

An Apology Leading to Dystopia: Or, Why Fuelling Climate Change Is Tortious

An Apology Leading to Dystopia: Or, Why Fuelling Climate Change Is Tortious

Signs of Invisibility: Nonrecognition of Natural Environments as Persons in International and Domestic Law

Legal Strategies and Challenges in Climate Change Mitigation in Vietnam: The Role of Non-Contractual Damages Compensation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About