Abstract
The complex evolution of the international regulation has led to the development of alternative policy architectures for addressing the threat of global climate change, and to very heterogeneous results in the various regions. This chapter examines in detail how legal transplants work in the environmental field, why they are continuously increasing, and analyses their specific characteristics. In particular legal transplants of environmental protection models have been strongly influenced by the globalized perception of the environmental phenomenon, and by that of its protection. In the last decades, we are witnessing the development of a body of rules, which tends towards a progressive approaching in the development of common operational choices in addressing environmental problems. This certainly derives from the fact that the environmental problem, in addition to having affected all legal systems in an almost contemporary way, is suitable to involve by its very nature multiple countries at the same time. Nonetheless, although climate change protection is a global issue, the implementation of climate change regulations remains a local issue, giving rise to different protection regimes that render comparative law analysis a suitable tool to investigate on the differences existing in the various legal systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Freestone (2016).
- 3.
Piñon Carlarne (2010), p. 6.
- 4.
Cass (2006).
- 5.
Ott et al. (2008).
- 6.
Christiansen (2003).
- 7.
Boom et al. (2016).
- 8.
Aldy et al. (2003).
- 9.
Piñon Carlarne (2010), p. 237.
- 10.
Piñon Carlarne (2010), p. 6.
- 11.
Sand (1993).
- 12.
Kelemen and Vogel (2010), p. 450.
- 13.
Benedick (1991).
- 14.
Hopgood (1998), p. 140.
- 15.
Kelemen and Vogel (2010), p. 439.
- 16.
Cousins et al. (2005).
- 17.
Cousins et al. (2005), p. 9.
- 18.
- 19.
Hersch and Viscusi (2006).
- 20.
Hunter and Salzman (2007).
- 21.
Hunter and Salzman (2007), p. 1743.
- 22.
The agreement has been signed by nine States: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
- 23.
Pidot (2006).
- 24.
Hersch and Viscusi (2006), p. 1662.
- 25.
Id.
- 26.
Osofsky (2009), pp. 380 and 383.
- 27.
Id., p. 383.
- 28.
Huggins (2008).
- 29.
Hersch and Viscusi (2006), p. 1663.
- 30.
Blomquist (2012).
- 31.
Markell and Ruhl (2010). Compare further the US Report by Margaret Rosso Grossman.
- 32.
Supreme Court, 2 April 2007.
- 33.
In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) to require the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles if the EPA Administrator finds that the emissions endanger public health and welfare (“Endangerment Finding”). See Cecot (2012), p. 190. See further Markell and Ruhl (2010), p. 15; Hester (2012), p. 52; Hunter (2008), p. 268.
- 34.
Massachusetts v. EPA (no. 05-1120), Supreme Court of the United States, Massachusetts, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, April 2, 2007, p. 1.
- 35.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, No. C 02-4106 JSW, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42335 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005).
- 36.
Hunter and Salzman (2007), p. 1743.
- 37.
Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief From Violations Resulting From Global Warming Caused by Acts and Omissions of the United States (available at http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ICC_Petition_7Dec05.pdf) (last visited December 2018). Borràs (2012).
- 38.
Markell and Hammond (2012).
- 39.
Markell and Hammond (2012), p. 29.
- 40.
Osofsky (2006), p. 675.
- 41.
Markell and Hammond (2012), p. 29.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
Grossman (2003), p. 9: “Any climate change lawsuit will be inextricably linked to the science of global warming”.
- 45.
Connecticut v. American Elec. Power Co., Inc., 582 F. 3d 309—Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2009.
- 46.
Prosser (1966), p. 1001.
- 47.
As concerns tort of public nuisance regulations, see Restatement Second of Torts (1977): Christie et al. (1990), p. 874.
- 48.
Hunter and Salzman (2007), p. 1752.
- 49.
Gersh Korsinsky, Plaintiff v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation; N.Y.C. Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants. 05 civ. 859 (nrb) United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21778 September 28, 2005, decided September 29, 2005, filed.
- 50.
American Electric Power Company, Inc., et al., v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 131 S. Ct. 2527; 180 L. Ed. 2d 435.
- 51.
Ned Comer, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Murphy OIL USA, et al., Defendants-Appellees, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 12-60291, Decided: May 14, 2013.
- 52.
See Climate Lawyers: http://climatelawyers.com/post/2012/03/22/Dismissed-Means-Dismissed-The-First-Climate-Change-Liability-Damages-Suit-Comer-v-Murphy-Oil-Is-Tossed-Again.aspx, last visited 29 April 2019.
- 53.
People of the State of California, ex rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; et al., corporation, Defendants—Appellees, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 07-16908, June 24 2009.
- 54.
Hunter and Salzman (2007), p. 1756.
- 55.
Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d, 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012).
- 56.
Gerrard and MacDougald (2013), p. 153.
- 57.
All the legal documents related to this case can be found at https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/kivalina-lawsuit-re-global-warming (last visited 13 January 2019).
- 58.
The case is discussed by Borràs (2012).
- 59.
Borràs (2012), p. 5.
- 60.
Lutz (1976).
- 61.
Lutz (1976), p. 469.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
Bukac (2015), p. 361.
- 66.
- 67.
Dyer (1972).
- 68.
See further Blumm and Guthrie (2012).
- 69.
Nanda and Ris Jr. (1976).
- 70.
Craig (2009), p. 781.
- 71.
Blumm and Wood (2017).
- 72.
All the documents of case are available at: http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/?cn-reloaded=1.
- 73.
Nevitt and Percival (2018), p. 491.
- 74.
- 75.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 310.
- 76.
See supra.
- 77.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 28.
- 78.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 37.
- 79.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 47.
- 80.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 35.
- 81.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 17.
- 82.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 24.
- 83.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 17.
- 84.
Peel and Osofsky (2015), p. 324.
- 85.
- 86.
Oberthür and Pallemaerts (2010).
- 87.
Torney (2015).
- 88.
Article 11 TFEU (ex Article 6 TEC): “Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development”.
- 89.
Lightfoot and Burchell (2005), p. 78.
- 90.
Oberthür and Pallemaerts (2010), p. 28.
- 91.
Lightfoot and Burchell (2005), p. 76.
- 92.
Van Schaik and Schunz (2012), pp. 169–186.
- 93.
Gupta and Grubb (2000), p. 4.
- 94.
Wettestad (2000).
- 95.
The long story of the Emissions Trading Directive is narrated by Jacometti (2010).
- 96.
Oberthür and Pallemaerts (2010).
- 97.
See Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament: An energy policy for Europe, Brussels, 10.1.2007, COM(2007) 1 final; Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees celsius the way ahead for 2020 and beyond, 10.1.2007, COM(2007) 1 final.
- 98.
Oberthür and Pallemaerts (2010), p. 25.
- 99.
See for renewable energy: Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.
- 100.
Torney (2015).
- 101.
Marín Durán and Morgera (2012), pp. 12 ff.
- 102.
Art. 3 (5) TEU.
- 103.
Art. 21 (2) TEU, letter (d).
- 104.
Art. 21 (2) TEU, letter (f).
- 105.
Art. 191 (1) TFEU.
- 106.
Torney (2015), p. 20.
- 107.
- 108.
Harris (2000).
- 109.
- 110.
Van Schaik and Schunz (2012), p. 169.
- 111.
Oberthür and Pallemaerts (2010).
- 112.
Pallemaerts (2004).
- 113.
An EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM (2013) 216.
- 114.
- 115.
See e.g. the Belgian Report in this Book.
- 116.
Wilensky (2015).
- 117.
Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 25501/2015), Lahore High Court Green Bench, https://elaw.org/PK_AsgharLeghari_v_Pakistan_2015.
- 118.
Peel and Osofsky (2018).
- 119.
Peel and Osofsky (2018), p. 39.
- 120.
See above.
- 121.
Peel and Osofsky (2018), p. 39.
- 122.
On this point, the bibliography is now boundless. To underline the relevance of the theme, the International Academy of Comparative Law dedicated a whole session to the theme of “Legal Cultures and Legal Transplants”, published in the Isaidat Law Review, (2011) Volume 1—Special Issue 1.
- 123.
Watson (1974).
- 124.
The Journal Theoretical Inquiries in Law, dedicates its Volume 10 (Number 2, July 2009) to the topic of Histories of Legal Transplantations, where several episodes of circulation of legal models are taken into consideration, highlighting the different reasons. See for example Harris and Crystal (2009), Kirov (2009) and Graziadei (2009).
- 125.
Timoteo (2018).
- 126.
On the reception of the German Pandectist School in Italy, see Furfaro (2012).
- 127.
On the reception of the common law in India, see Glenn (2000), p. 273 ss.
- 128.
- 129.
Kulovesi (2012).
- 130.
- 131.
De Morpurgo (2013).
- 132.
Graziadei (2006), p. 441.
- 133.
- 134.
Marín Durán and Morgera (2012), p. 57.
- 135.
Graziadei (2009), p. 723.
- 136.
As Graziadei (2009), p. 697 recalls: “The question whether law can be transferred from one place to another turns out to be a question of the highest importance, whether these actors are interested in political reform, economic growth, social progress, or less beneficial ends. Unsurprisingly Institutions like the World Bank now take an interest in the literature on legal transplants and the topic is featured regularly in the study of economic growth and political change, as every student of law and development knows”.
- 137.
Wiener (2001).
- 138.
Lin (2009).
- 139.
Lin (2009), p. 717.
- 140.
Legrand (1997).
- 141.
See for example Timoteo (2015), p. 121.
- 142.
- 143.
- 144.
- 145.
Birnie (1977).
- 146.
Palmer (1992).
- 147.
The environmental competences enter the Treaty of Rome with the Single European Act of 1987, which inserts a new Title VII, dedicated to the “Environment”, consisting of three articles: 130R, 130S and 130T. The Single European Act states that action by the Community relating to the environment shall be based on the principles that preventive action should be taken that environmental damage should as priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. It further provides that environmental protection requirements shall be component of the Community’s other policies.
- 148.
Art. 37 Nice Charter. Environmental Protection: “A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development”.
- 149.
In the Preamble to the TEU, it is true that one of the objectives of the European Union should be “to promote the economic and social progress of their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development in the context of the creation of the internal market and the strengthening of cohesion and of environmental protection”. In Article. 3, paragraph 3, TEU also states that the Union “strives for the sustainable development of Europe, based on balanced economic growth and price stability, on a highly competitive social market economy, which aims at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment”.
- 150.
Yang and Percival (2009), p. 664.
- 151.
Supreme Court of India—Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India 1996 (5) SCC 281, 293.
References
Aldy JE, Barrett S, Stavins RN (2003) Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures. Clim Policy 3(4):373–397
Araiza WD (2011) The public trust doctrine as an interpretive canon. UCDL Rev 45:693
Bader HR (1992) Antaeus and the public trust doctrine: a new approach to substantive environmental protection in the common law. BC Environ Aff Law Rev 19:749
Benedick R (1991) Ozone diplomacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Birnie P (1977) The development of international environmental law. Rev Int Stud 3(2):169–190
Blomquist RF (2012) Comparative climate change torts. Val Univ Law Rev 46:1053
Blumm MC, Guthrie RD (2012) Internationalizing the public trust doctrine: natural law and constitutional and statutory approaches to fulfilling the Saxion vision. UCDL Rev 45:741
Blumm MC, Wood MC (2017) No ordinary lawsuit: climate change, due process, and the public trust doctrine. Am Univ Law Rev 67:1
Boom K, Richards JA, Leonard S (2016) Climate justice. The international momentum towards climate litigation. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin
Borràs S (2012) (CEDAT, Universitat Rovira i Virgili), Climate change responsibilities in polar peoples: the Inuit Case, EJOLT Factsheet No. 44. http://www.ejolt.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FS-44.pdf
Bouwer K (2018) The unsexy future of climate change litigation. J Environ Law 30(3):483–506
Braun M (2014) EU climate norms in East-Central Europe. JCMS J Common Mark Stud 52(3):445–460
Bukac A (2015) Fracking and the public trust doctrine: this land is their land, but after Robinson, might this land really be our land. USFL Rev 49:361
Campbell TA (1994) The public trust, what’s it worth. Nat Resour J 34:73
Cass LR (2006) The failures of American and European Climate Policy – international norms, domestic politics, and unachievable commitments. State University of New York Press, Albany
Cecot C (2012) Blowing hot air: an analysis of state involvement in greenhouse gas litigation. Vand Law Rev 65:189
Chalecki EL (2009) Exceptionalism as foreign policy – US climate change policy and an emerging norm of compliance. In: Harris PG (ed) Climate change and foreign policy – case studies from east to west. Routledge, London
Chase AR (1991) Remedying CERCLA’s natural resource damages provision: incorporation of the public trust doctrine into natural resource damage actions. Va Environ Law J 11:353
Christiansen AC (2003) Convergence or divergence? Status and prospects for US climate strategy. Clim Policy 3(4):343–358
Christie GC et al (1990) Cases and materials on the law of torts. West Publishing, St. Paul
Cousins E, Perks R, Warren W (2005) Rewriting the rules, Special edition: The Bush administration’s first term environmental record. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington DC
Cox R (2016) A climate change litigation precedent: Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands. J Energy Nat Resour Law 34(2):143–163
Craig RK (2009) Adapting to climate change: the potential role of state common-law public trust doctrines. Vt Law Rev 34:78
De Graaf KJ, Jans JH (2015) The Urgenda decision: Netherlands liable for role in causing dangerous global climate change. J Environ Law 27(3):517–527
De Morpurgo M (2013) The European Union as a global producer of transnational law of risk regulation: a case study on chemical regulation. Eur Law J 19(6):779–798
DeLisle J (1999) Lex Americana: United States legal assistance, American legal models, and legal change in the post-communist world and beyond. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 20:179
Dyer DG (1972) California beach access: the Mexican Law and the public trust. Ecol Law Q 2:571
Freestone D (2016) The United Nations Framework Convention on climate change—the basis for the climate change regime. In: Gray KR, Tarasofsky R, Carlarne C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international climate change law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Furfaro F (2012) The revival of Romanistic scholarship between the 19th and 20th centuries as a ‘Centralizing Force’ in European legal history: the masterpieces of German Pandectist Literature revised by Italian translators. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 19(2):262–280
Gerrard MB, MacDougald JA (2013) An introduction to climate change liability litigation and a view to the future. Conn Insur Law J 20:153
Gifford DG (2010) Climate change and the public law model of torts: reinvigorating judicial restraint doctrines. SCL Rev 62:201
Glenn HP (2000) Legal traditions of the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Graziadei M (2006) Comparative law as the study of transplants and receptions. In: The Oxford handbook of comparative law, pp 441–476
Graziadei M (2009) Legal transplants and the frontiers of legal knowledge. Theor Inq Law 10(2):723–743
Grossman DA (2003) Warming up to a not-so-radical idea: tort-based climate change litigation. Colum J Environ L 28:1
Gupta J, Grubb M (2000) Climate change and European leadership – a sustainable role for Europe? Kluwer, Dordrecht
Hargrave L (1992) The public trust doctrine: a plea for precision. La Law Rev 53:1535
Harris PG (2000) Climate change and American Foreign Policy: an introduction. In: Harris PG (ed) Climate change and American Foreign Policy. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Harris R, Crystal M (2009) Some reflections on the transplantation of British company law in post-Ottoman Palestine. Theor Inq Law 10(2):561–587
Harrison K (2010) The United States as an outlier: economic and institutional challenges to US climate policy. In: Harrison K, McIntosh Sundstrom L (eds) Global commons, domestic decisions, the comparative politics of climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hersch J, Viscusi WK (2006) Allocating responsibility for the failure of global warming policies. Univ Pa Law Rev 155:1657
Hester TD (2012) A new front blowing in: state law and the future of climate change public nuisance litigation. Stan Environ Law J 31:49
Hinteregger M (2017) Civil liability and the challenges of climate change: a functional analysis. J Eur Tort Law 2017(2):238–259
Hopgood S (1998) American Foreign Environmental Policy and the power of the state. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hsu A et al (2015) Towards a new climate diplomacy. Nat Clim Chang 5:501
Huggins A (2008) Is climate change litigation an effective strategy for promoting greater action to address climate change? What other legal mechanisms might be appropriate? Local Gov Law J 13:184–191
Hunter TS (2008) Ambiguity in the air: why judicial interpretation of insurance policy terms should force insurance companies to pay for global warming litigation. Penn St Law Rev 113:267
Hunter D, Salzman J (2007) Negligence in the air: the duty of care in climate change litigation. Univ Pa Law Rev 155:1741
Ingram H, Oggins CR (1992) The public trust doctrine and community values in water. Nat Resour J 32:515
Jacometti V (2010) Lo scambio di quote di emissione: analisi di un nuovo strumento di tutela ambientale in prospettiva comparatistica. Giuffrè, Milano
Kelemen RD, Vogel D (2010) Trading places: the role of the United States and the European Union in international environmental politics. Comp Polit Stud 43(4):427–456
Kirov J (2009) Foreign law between grand hazard and great irritation: the Bulgarian experience after 1878. Theor Inq Law 10(2):699–722
Kulovesi K (2012) Climate change in EU external relations: please follow my example (or I might force you to). In: Morgera E (ed) The external environmental policy of the European Union–EU and international law perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 115–148
Legrand P (1997) The impossibility of ‘legal transplants’. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4(2):111–124
Lightfoot S, Burchell J (2005) The European Union and the world summit on sustainable development: normative power Europe in action? JCMS J Common Mark Stud 43(1):75–95
Lin L-W (2009) Legal transplants through private contracting: codes of vendor conduct in global supply chains as an example. Am J Comp Law 57(3):711–744
Lin J (2015) The first successful climate negligence case: a comment on Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment). Clim Law 5(1):65–81
Lutz RE (1976) The laws of environmental management: a comparative study. Am J Comp Law 24:447
Manners I (2002) Normative power Europe: a contradiction in terms? JCMS J Common Mark Stud 40(2):235–258
Marín Durán G, Morgera E (2012) Environmental integration in the EU’s external relations, beyond multilateral dimensions. Hart, Oxford
Markell DL, Hammond E (2012) A primer on common law & related causes of action in climate change litigation. Civil remedies. In: Gerrard MB, Freeman J (eds) Global climate change and US law, 2nd edn
Markell DL, Ruhl JB (2010) An empirical survey of climate change litigation in the United States. Environ Law Rep 40(7):10644
Mattei U (1994) Efficiency in legal transplants: an essay in comparative law and economics. Int Rev Law Econ 14(1):3–19
McCormick S et al (2018) Strategies in and outcomes of climate change litigation in the United States. Nat Clim Chang 8(9):829
McCurdy MK (1988) Public trust protection for wetlands. Environ Law 19:683
Meyers GD (1988) Variation on a theme: expanding the public trust doctrine to include protection of wildlife. Environ Law 19:723
Meyers GD (1994) Divining common law standards for environmental protection: application of the public trust doctrine in the context of reforming NEPA and the commonwealth environmental protection act. Environ Plann Law J 11(4):289–306
Nanda VP, Ris TWR Jr (1976) The public trust doctrine: a viable approach to international environmental protection. Ecol Law Q 5:291
Nevitt MP, Percival RV (2018) Could official climate denial revive the common law as a regulatory backstop. Wash Univ Law Rev 96:441
Oberthür S (2009) The role of the EU in global environmental and climate governance. In: Telo M (ed) The European Union and global governance. Routledge, London
Oberthür S, Kelly CR (2008) EU leadership in international climate policy: achievements and challenges. Int Spectator 43(3):35–50
Oberthür S, Pallemaerts M (eds) (2010) The new climate policies of the European Union Internal Legislation and Climate Diplomacy. VUBPress – Brussels University Press, Brussels
Osofsky HM (2006) Inuit petition as a bridge-beyond dialectics of climate change and indigenous peoples’ rights. Am Indian Law Rev 31:675
Osofsky HM (2009) Conclusion: adjudicating climate change across scales. In: Burns WCG, Osofsky HM (eds) Adjudicating climate change: state, national, and international approaches. Cambridge University Press, New York
Ott HE, Sterk W, Watanabe R (2008) The Bali roadmap: new horizons for global climate change? Clim Policy 8(1):91–95
Pallemaerts M (1992) International environmental law from Stockholm to Rio: back to the future. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 1:254
Pallemaerts M (2004) Le cadre international et européen des politiques de lutte contre les changements climatiques. In: Courrier hébdomadaire, 1858–9. CRISP, Brussels
Palmer G (1992) New ways to make international environmental law. Am J Int Law 86(2):259–283
Peel J, Osofsky H (2015) Climate change litigation, regulatory pathways to cleaner energy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Peel J, Osofsky H (2018) A rights turn in climate change litigation? Transnatl Environ Law 7(1):37–67
Peeters M, Stallworthy M, De Cendra de Larragán J (eds) (2012) Climate law in EU member states: towards national legislation for climate protection. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Percival RV (2007) Environmental law in the twenty-first century. Va Environ Law J 25:1
Percival RV (2009) The globalization of environmental law. Pace Environ Law Rev 26:451
Percival RV (2011) Global law and the environment. Wash Law Rev 86:579
Pfrommer T et al (2019) Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability. Clim Chang 152(1):67–84
Pidot JR (2006) Global warming in the courts, an overview of current litigation and common legal issues. Washington DC, Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Center
Piñon Carlarne C (2010) Climate change law and policy EU and US approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pozzo B (2009) Le politiche comunitarie in campo energetico. Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente XXIV(6):841–876
Pozzo B (2010) Tutela dell’ambiente (diritto internazionale), in Enciclopedia del Diritto, Annali, III. Giuffrè, Roma, p 1156
Prosser WL (1966) Private action for public nuisance. Va Law Rev 52:997
Razzaque J (2001) Application of public trust doctrine in Indian environmental cases. J Environ Law 13(2):221–234
Rieser A (1991) Ecological preservation as a public property right: an emerging doctrine in search of a theory. Harv Environ Law Rev 15:393
Roy S, Woerdman E (2016) Situating Urgenda versus the Netherlands within comparative climate change law. J Energy Nat Resour Law 34(2):165–189
Sand PH (1993) The greening of international law: emerging principles and rules. Ind J Global Legal Stud 1:293
Sand PH (2007) The evolution of international environmental law. In: Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E (eds) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sax JL (1970) The public trust doctrine in natural resource law: effective judicial intervention. Mich Law Rev 68(3):471–566
Schreurs MA, Tiberghien Y (2010) European Union Leadership in climate change: mitigation through multilevel reinforcement. In: Harrison K, McIntosh Sundstrom L (eds) Global commons, domestic decisions, the comparative politics of climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 23
Schunz S (2009) European Union’s external climate policy: a foreign policy analysis. CFSP Forum 7(2)
Smythe MK (1972) Environmental law--expanding the definition of public trust uses. NCL Rev 51:316
Thorpe A (2008) Tort-based climate change litigation and the political question doctrine. J Land Use Environ Law 24:79
Timoteo M (2015) Law and language: issues related to legal translation and interpretation of Chinese rules on tortious liability of environmental pollution. China-EU Law J 4(2-4):121–133
Timoteo M (2018) Contemporary Chinese Law: a linguistic perspective in handbook of communication in the legal sphere. Walter de Gruyter, Boston/Berlin
Torney D (2015) European climate leadership in question: policies towards China and India. MIT Press, Cambridge
Van Schaik L (2010) The sustainability of the EU’s Model for Climate Diplomacy. In: Oberthür S, Pallemaerts M (eds) The new climate policies of the European Union Internal Legislation and Climate Diplomacy. VUBPress – Brussels University Press, Brussels, p 251
Van Schaik L, Schunz S (2012) Explaining EU activism and impact in global climate politics: is the Union a norm-or interest-driven actor? JCMS J Common Mark Stud 50(1):169–186
Van Zeben J (2015) Establishing a governmental duty of care for climate change mitigation: will Urgenda turn the tide? Transnatl Environ Law 4(2):339–357
Watson A (1974) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh
Weiss EB (1992) International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a new world order. Geo Law J 81:675
Wettestad J (2000) The complicated development of EU climate policy. In: Gupta J, Grubb M (eds) Climate change and European Leadership – a sustainable Role for Europe? Kluwer, Dordrecht
Wheeler N (2013) The role of American NGOs in China’s modernization, invited influence. Routledge, London
Wiener JB (2001) Something borrowed for something blue: legal transplants and the evolution of global environmental law. Ecol Law Q 27:1295
Wilensky M (2015) Climate change in the courts: an assessment of non-US climate litigation. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 26:131
Yang T, Percival RV (2009) The emergence of global environmental law. Ecol Law Q 36:615
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pozzo, B. (2021). Climate Change Litigation in a Comparative Law Perspective. In: Sindico, F., Mbengue, M.M. (eds) Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 47. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46882-8_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46882-8_31
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46881-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46882-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)