sir,  Ive  used  "eco-centric" in the context of climate change justice and not in the sense of environmental justice. one may be geography specific in case of environmental issue but to my understanding not in the case of climate change because causes may happen in the north pole and effects on the south pole. Can we proposed a formula for sharing country-wise responsibility as contributors to the climate change?   If not, then why and how the courts should address climatal change issues, mostly raised in public interest litigation? 

Dear Qaisar,

some national constitutions enhance environmental principles, as it is the case of Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. There is an interesting WTO case regarding the import of  recycled  pneumatic from the EU. Brazilian Supreme Court, in this precedente - ADPF 101 - decided to forbid any import of this kind stating that it is contrary to the duty to preserve the environment.

best,

Tatiana

Kenneth M Towe it seems you are not in agreement with factual position. The final agreement in #COP21 suggests otherwise---almost a global consensus.

Tatiana Waisberg thanks for sharing useful and interesting information. However, i'd like to repeat that my question pertains to "climate change justice" whereas, "environment" is somewhat locally identified problem and possibly with a localized solution. 

In my view we may need to redefine the concept of "sustainable development" and then reform our legal orders accordingly.

You can use the concept of "cumulative offense" for an environmental offense referred to Climate Change.

Criminal penalties for conducts which in isolation are harmless or have minimum harmfullness, but whose repetition or reiteration could have damaging glogal consequences on the protected object ("cumulative risk"). It is what is known as the "cumulative offense" and pursue therefore prevent a negative composition effect.

I know about literature but in Spanish or German.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258840965_Delito_medioambiental_como_delito_de_lesin

Article ¿Delito medioambiental como delito de lesión?

Juan Luis Fuentes Osorio thank u so much for sharing your views. however, do u think judicial "adjudication" is a solution to the climate change issue? or it should be left with the Executive branch? 

I think for minimal damages would be more effective the administrative law. However, the cumulative offenses include damages that are minimal on climate change but very serious in the local context in which they occur. In this situation I think they should be punished by criminal law.

There is a difference between an action sanctioned by the risk of repetition a the global damage produced by the repetition of this behavior. In the first case it can be identified the author and the place of commission. Likewise it isn't necessary to produce a global damage.

Quisar,

I like your approach from the point of view of justice.

Since the UN has established beyond any doubt the reason of extreme weather (greenhouse gases from fossil fuel emissions, let's call it "damaging pollution") that causes fatalities and damages, it is obvious that the polluter should pay his proportionate share.

Data on this "damaging pollution" are available yearly or every 6 months or so.

I think it is up to any court to rule a first-ever claim for damages to the biggest polluters after fatalities/damages have taken place anywhere on the globe. That would set a precedent that all polluters would get the scare they need to get (for years now).

You do not pay for these consequences of climate change (it cannot be set a specific causal relationship to one behavior). But we could decide to make one person responsible for making a behavior he knows that it's related to the climate change

You are right. Finally, it is a problem of the definition of "environmental crime".

Is it associated with the production of a harm? When it happens? Is it defined in an ecological or legal way? Who decides?

the "will" to do is the most important thing. We can objectively determine that what amount of emission of GHGs can affect the planet. Then we may share responsibility nationwise/per capita. 

Kenneth M Towe our difference is on basic premises, since at the international level it is almost globally accepted that GHGs emission contributes to climate change, as a student of law i would consider it a "dispute". Scientists like u may have different point of view. so far solution regimes offered for climate change issues are political one. efforts are being made to formulate justiciability frame work. this is an interesting paper on the issue http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/WeisbachDP39.pdf  

dear Aleš Kralj 

nothing in this world is permanent except change. We are supposed to live with the contemporary knowledge subject to openness for change. 

 dear Aleš Kralj

Moreover, my background and perspective of understanding is pure legalistic, perhaps scientific question regarding definition of the problem is not my domain.  

Dear sir

with all due respect, there is already a plethora of legislation in many countries to control GHGs emission ( http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Global_climate_legislation_study_20151.pdf ). In certain cases climate change issues approached to the courts in many jurisdiction ( https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/white_paper_-_climate_change_in_the_courts_-_assessment_of_non_u.s._climate_litigation.pdf ).  I am sure you must know famous famous Urgenda case decided by an Austrian court ( http://www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case/ ) wherein Austrian Government was directed to reduce GHGs emission to a certain level.  

Scholarly opinions have their worth and value but Climate change now has been made REAL LEGAL ISSUE. Therefore, courts are bound to adjudicate and I wonder, how will they decide and to what consequence?

Dear Aleš Kralj 

the question you addressed is called environmental issue "local identifiable problem with local identifiable damage".  My question, " how can the courts be eco-centric, when there is no global consensus on the proportionate responsibility?" is looking for justiciability option, whether it should be made justiciable or it should be left with executive branch---like foreign policy issues where courts do not intervene.   

Kenneth M Towe  you are confusing the law and science. science wont believe fiction but a significant portion of law is called "legal fiction", where certain condition is assumed to exist which otherwise doesn't. You can boggle about scientific questions as a scientist but a court/lawyer is bound legislation. Can a court throw away a peice of legislation on the basis of scientific evidence. 

Aleš Kralj  please quot relevant provision of law. it would be new for me.

Ignorance of law at its best. pro-life, pro-choice issuess in many jurisdictions are decided in the light of legislative policy not SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Courts are always bound by law ---not scientific evidence.  

To be authority in a court of law, any "global consensus" must be legislated. Judges are not permitted (theoretically) to read scientific journals - or texts of stone-age religion - and therefore rule contrary to law. Fortunately -- at least in the U.S. where judges are more likely to be, and too often are, swayed by stone-age religion. Science, of course, can be admitted as evidence of fact, but not of law.

Charles Gardner I agree. The courts are always the slave of law. SCOTUS Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." The Common Law (1881), p. 1

It becomes messy when non-lawyers try to become authority on law. Science never claims finality. whereas, the law until amended is deemed to be categorically final. When the legislatures in various jurisdictions have accepted as a "problem" then courts cannot reject legislative wisdom on the basis of scientific (minority) "opinion" .