Legal battles need to be backed up with political pressure and protests
Justice and the law
For many decades courts have been used by environmentalists to rule on environmental issues, often coming out on the side of the environment.
In the past few years, campaigners have begun taking climate change issues to court, challenging governments and corporations. They have argued that climate change is an issue of justice.
There have been some significant victories in climate change legal disputes. In 2021, German activists, including Luisa Neubauer of Fridays for Future, won a case that compelled the government to improve its Climate Protection Act. The ruling forces the government to determine annual reduction targets up to the year 2050.
The same year, a Netherlands court ruled that Shell had to cut its CO2 emissions by 45%.
But there have also been defeats. In December 2021, the High Court in England court dismissed an attempt to declare the UK climate policy unlawful. And just recently in June 2022, the US Supreme Court supported a challenge by Republicans to the Clean Power Plan, which required individual states to reduce emissions.
The US Supreme Court is the most politicized major court in the world, and illustrates the naked power of big money to interpret the law in that country.
Climate change – a violation of human rights
Courts in most other countries are not so obviously political. Increasingly judges are willing to agree that climate change violates human rights. But courts are still components of the political and economic systems that are so resistant to any real change. The impartiality of courts is seriously limited when it comes to challenging the power of the state and private wealth.
Historically, courts have overturned unjust practices and laws only after political campaigns and struggles. Workers’ rights, women’s rights and the right for people to have a clean, safe environment were not products of the minds of liberal judges. They were responses to the huge struggles of ordinary people against injustice and oppression.
While courts may put a stop to pollution, or promote environmental policies, they will very seldom challenge the free market system. The German government will no doubt fail to keep to its emission guidelines, arguing that reaching its targets will cause hardship and disruption. The result will be a legal battle which could take many years.
So while legal action may be a useful part of a wider campaign, there are definite limits to what changes can be done through the courts. Protests and political struggles will still be essential.
Climate Change, Justice and the Law
For many decades courts have been used by environmentalists to rule on environmental issues, often coming out on the side of the environment.
In the past few years, campaigners have begun taking climate change issues to court, challenging governments and corporations. They have argued that climate change is an issue of justice.
There have been some significant victories in climate change legal disputes. In 2021, German activists, including Luisa Neubauer of Fridays for Future, won a case that compelled the government to improve its Climate Protection Act. The ruling forces the government to determine annual reduction targets up to the year 2050.
The same year, a Netherlands court ruled that Shell had to cut its CO2 emissions by 45%.
But there have also been defeats. In December 2021, the High Court in England court dismissed an attempt to declare the UK climate policy unlawful. And just recently in June 2022, the US Supreme Court supported a challenge by Republicans to the Clean Power Plan, which required individual states to reduce emissions.
The US Supreme Court is the most politicized major court in the world, and illustrates the naked power of big money to interpret the law in that country.
Climate change – a violation of human rights
Courts in most other countries are not so obviously political. Increasingly judges are willing to agree that climate change violates human rights. But courts are still components of the political and economic systems that are so resistant to any real change. The impartiality of courts is seriously limited when it comes to challenging the power of the state and private wealth.
Historically, courts have overturned unjust practices and laws only after political campaigns and struggles. Workers’ rights, women’s rights and the right for people to have a clean, safe environment were not products of the minds of liberal judges. They were responses to the huge struggles of ordinary people against injustice and oppression.
While courts may put a stop to pollution, or promote environmental policies, they will very seldom challenge the free market system. The German government will no doubt fail to keep to its emission guidelines, arguing that reaching its targets will cause hardship and disruption. The result will be a legal battle which could take many years.
So while legal action may be a useful part of a wider campaign, there are definite limits to what changes can be done through the courts. Protests and political struggles will still be essential.