15 June 2021
The Power of Open Norms
In a judgement of 26 May, the District Court of the Hague found that Royal Dutch Shell has an “individual responsibility” to limit its carbon emissions by at least 45 percent by 2030. Notable about the ruling is the unwritten standard of care functioning as an open norm, facilitating the accountability of private power. The openness of legal categories not only entails a potential to drive forward social change, but it also implicitly highlights the political role and nature of private law. Continue reading >>
1
28 May 2021
Shell’s Responsibility for Climate Change
On 26 May 2021, the District Court of the Hague rendered a judgment in the case Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell that can rightly be called revolutionary. This is the first judgment of its kind in which a multinational corporation is held responsible, in part based on international law, for its contribution to climate change. Continue reading >>
0
30 April 2021
Ok, Boomer
On control loops, climate change and the Federal Constitutional Court Continue reading >>
0
30 April 2021
Judges for Future
The judgment of 29 April 2021 quashing parts of the Climate Protection Act (CPA) has made history. Not only because the First Senate of the BVerfG put an end to deferring the reduction of greenhouse gasses to the future, or at least to the next government. But because this turn to the future came in the form of a turn to international law and institutions. It is precisely by relying on international law that the court overcomes the counter-majoritarian difficulty commonly tantalizing climate litigation and human rights law generally. The most astonishing fact is, however, that the court entirely avoids the tragic choice between supposedly undemocratic international commitments and the democratic legislature. I argue that it does so by approaching constitutional law in a decidedly postcolonial perspective. Continue reading >>29 April 2021
The Constitution Speaks in the Future Tense
Who ought to decide on climate issues? Now, the Constitutional Court has decided. It held that the provisions of the Federal Climate Protection Act are “incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as they lack sufficient specifications for further emission reductions from 2031 onwards”. This decision is extraordinary in many ways: in its interpretation of the constitutional obligation to protect the environment (art. 20a of the Basic Law) as much as in its commitment to international cooperation and international law in climate issues. From this decision on, the German constitution will speak in the future tense. Continue reading >>16 November 2020
Greening Banks in the Face of Uncertainty
To this day, banks continue to plough money into carbon-intensive sectors of the economy while making inadequate provisions for potential losses. The European Central Bank’s 2020 draft Guide on climate-related and environmental risks is a major step in supervisory efforts to address this problem, which so far has escaped critical scrutiny. It sets out how the ECB will use its supervisory powers to get banks to properly monitor, disclose and price risk. As we argue, its current approach is unlikely to work because it asks banks to quantify risks that often resist simple quantification. Instead, the ECB should provide banks with more targeted guidance. That will make banking supervision more political than it is today. Continue reading >>
0
30 October 2020
In Defence of Green Civil Disobedience
Throughout history, failure of the state to address and redress pressing social problems has given rise to political acts of civil disobedience. While activists typically claim that their illegal actions are justified either legally or morally in that they are necessary to protect a higher good, such necessity defences have so far been ‘notoriously unsuccessful’ before courts. Recent judicial developments suggest that this may be about to change, and that unlawful protest can be a legitimate response to a persistent pattern of state inaction. Continue reading >>
0
24 March 2020
Corona und Klima – Krise als Chance
Warum geht in der Corona-Krise, was in der Klimakrise versagt bleibt? Warum folgt die Politik in dem einen Fall ohne großes Zögern dem Rat der Wissenschaft, und streitet sich in dem anderen Fall über so banale, einfach umzusetzende Maßnahmen wie eine generelle Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung auf Autobahnen? Warum sieht die Bevölkerung jedenfalls weit überwiegend im Kampf gegen das Virus die Notwendigkeit der Maßnahmen ein und verhält sich entsprechend, während beim Klimaschutz eine kognitive Dissonanz vorherrscht? Continue reading >>06 March 2020
Law and the “Value” of Future Expectations: Climate Change, Stranded Assets and Capitalist Dynamics
In both direct and obvious ways, but also in ways that are often backgrounded and obscured, recent discussions that fossil fuel assets and infrastructures risk becoming “stranded assets” if legal regulations to limit global warming are imposed makes evident the critical role that law plays in (co-)constituting “value”. Continue reading >>21 December 2019
Urgenda III: Die Niederlande als Modell richterlichen Klimaschutzes
Mit dem Klima-Urteil des Hohen Rats ist die niederländische Gerichtsbarkeit endgültig zum weltweit bestaunten und umjubelten Vorbild einer Bewegung geworden, die unter dem Schlagwort der „Climate Justice“ bemüht ist, die dritte Gewalt für die Durchsetzung einer entschiedeneren Klimaschutzpolitik zu aktivieren. Im Kern der rechtlichen Auseinandersetzung geht es um die Frage nach der Entscheidungsmacht der Gerichte in der gewaltenteiligen Demokratie. Dürfen oder müssen Richter für sich in Anspruch nehmen, zwingende Vorgaben für den Klimaschutz zu entwickeln? Continue reading >>
0