JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework
Lawrence, Peter | Köhler, Lukas
German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 60 (2018), Iss. 1 : pp. 639–666
4 Citations (CrossRef)
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
Peter Lawrence is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania Law School, teaching international law and supervising the University of Tasmania Law Review.
Lukas Köhler is a Member of Parliament, Deutscher Bundestag.
Cited By
-
Judith Butler and future generations: Transtemporal relationality, generational trouble and future-oriented ruthless critique
Reder, Michael | Faets, SimonPhilosophy & Social Criticism, Vol. (2024), Iss.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537241232965 [Citations: 0] -
Assessing climate justice awareness among climate neutral-to-be cities
Della Valle, Nives | Ulpiani, Giulia | Vetters, NadjaHumanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 10 (2023), Iss. 1
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01953-y [Citations: 4] -
The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals
Application of World Law by International Courts and Tribunals to Protect the Environment
Spijkers, Otto
2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_22 [Citations: 0] -
Enfranchising the future: Climate justice and the representation of future generations
Gonzalez‐Ricoy, Inigo | Rey, FelipeWIREs Climate Change, Vol. 10 (2019), Iss. 5
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.598 [Citations: 28]
Abstract
International climate litigation is an important supplement to the global United Nations negotiating process. Establishing a normative basis for such litigation is important in terms of its legitimacy. Rehfeld’s concept of representation is used in this article to argue that it is coherent to talk about representation of future generations in relation to climate change-related claims brought by States on behalf of their citizens and future generations before international tribunals. The article argues that international law ought to promote justice (following Buchanan and Ratner) – but extended to include intergenerational justice defined as an obligation on current generations to ensure subsistence enjoyment of core human rights by future generations. It is further argued that international tribunals ought to represent future generations as a vehicle for promoting intergenerational justice, given the massive bias against future generations in current law-making and institutions. How this would translate into a concrete case is illustrated by discussion of a potential advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The normative framework is utilised to illustrate how the Court should 1) interpret some selected general principles of international environmental law in relation to the Paris Climate Agreement and 2) take a liberal interpretation of its procedural rules to allow amicus curiae briefs by international organisations purporting to represent or highlight the interests of future generations in the climate context.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peter Lawrence / Lukas Köhler: Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework | 1 | ||
| I. Introduction | 2 | ||
| II. International Law Should Promote Justice Defined as Promotion of Core Human Rights Extended to Future Generations | 4 | ||
| III. International Tribunals Should Promote Justice, Including in Relation to Future Generations | 9 | ||
| A. INTs Ought to Promote Justice, Including Intergenerational Justice | 9 | ||
| B. INTs Must Exercise Discretion in Clarifying Indeterminate International Legal Rules | 1 | ||
| IV. Rehfeld’s Concept of Representation in the Context of International Climate Litigation | 1 | ||
| A. Rehfeld’s Concept of Representation | 1 | ||
| B. Rationale for Representation of Future Generations in INTs | 1 | ||
| V. Representation of Future Generations in International Climate Litigation through Reforming Procedural Rules | 1 | ||
| A. ICJ Advisory Opinion | 1 | ||
| B. Amicus Curiae Briefs | 2 | ||
| VI. Conclusion | 2 |