Legal steps outside the climate convention: Litigation as a tool to address climate change

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 76-86

  Gupta, Joyeeta ^a,b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNESCO IHE INSTITUTE FOR WATER EDUCATION   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; POLICY MAKING;

EID: 34147106041     PISSN: 09628797     EISSN: 14679388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00541.x     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 9 May 1992).
2. Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC (Kyoto, 11 December 1997).
3. This principle was used in the Trail Smelter Case between Canada and the USA. See Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) [1941] 3 R.I.A.A. 1907. The no-significant-harm principle is also included in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigable Uses of International Watercourses (New York, 21 May 1997). Article 7 of that treaty states: 'Watercourse States shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse states'.
4. Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (UN Doc.A/CONF.48/14, 16 June 1972), Principles 21 and 22.
5. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/ Rev.1, 13 June 1992), Principle 13.
6. See the Conference Statement of the Conference on the Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security (Toronto, 30 June 1988); Declaration of the Hague (the Hague, 11 March 1989). See also Noordwijk Declaration on Climate Change (Noordwijk, 8 November 1989), which was adopted by the 67 countries attending the Atmospheric Pollution and Climatic Change Ministerial Conference held at Noordwijk, The Netherlands. See also Ministerial Declaration of the Second World Climate Conference (Geneva, 7 November 1990), which was adopted by the ministers and other representatives of 137 countries and the EC.
7. D. Bodansky, 'The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: A Commentary', 18:2 YJIL (1993), 451, at 498.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies (WMO and UNEP, 1990), at xxvi.
9. J. Gupta, The Climate Change Convention and Developing Countries - From Conflict to Consensus? (Kluwer, 1997), at 135.
10. J. Gupta, 'Leadership in the Climate Regime: Inspiring the Commitment of Developing Countries in the Post-Kyoto Phase', 7:2 RECIEL (1998), 178.
11. See UNFCCC, n. 1 above, Article 3(3).
12. L. Rajamani, 'The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility and the Balance of Commitments under the Climate Regime', 9:2 RECIEL (2000), 120; and R. Anand, International Environmental Justice: A North-South Dimension (Ashgate, 2004).
13. See, e.g., E.M. Penalver, 'Acts of God or Toxic Torts? Applying Tort Principles to the Problem of Climate Change', 38:4 Nat. Resources (1998), 563; D.A. Grossman, 'Warming up to a Not-So-Radical Idea: Tort Based Climate Change Litigation', 28:1 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 2003), 1; M. Allen, 'Commentary: Liability for Climate Change: Will ever be Possible to Sue Anyone for Damaging the Climate?', 421:6926 Nature (2003), 891; A. Lipanovich, 'Smoke before Oil: Modelling a Suit Against the Auto and Oil Industry on the Tobacco Tort Litigation is Feasible', 35 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. (2005), 429; L. Marburg, 'Combating the Impacts of Global Warming: A Novel Legal Strategy', Colo.J.Int'l Envtl.L.& Pol'y 2001 Yearbook (2002), 171; and R.W. Thackeray, 'Struggling for Air: The Kyoto Protocol, Citizen's Suits Under the Clean Air Act, and the United States Options for Addressing Global Climate Change', 14 Indiana International and Comparative Law Review (2004), 855.
14. A. Gillespie, 'Small Island States in the Face of Climate Change: The End of the Line in International Environmental Responsibility', 22:1 UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy (2004), 107.
15. However, this would imply that the small island States would have to convince two-thirds of the members to agree with them; and the advisory opinion that may emanate from the ICJ would be more of legal advice than relief.
16. R.E. Jacobs, 'Treading Deep Waters: Substantive Law Issues in Tuvalu's Threat to Sue the United States in the International Court of Justice', 14:1 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal (2005), 103; Jacobs suggests that it might be easier to sue the USA under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, if both countries acceded to it.
17. R. Verheyen, Climate Change Damage in International Law, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg (unpublished, 2003); R. Verheyen, Climate Change Damage and International Law: Prevention Duties and State Responsibility (Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), at 230-232.
18. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982).
19. United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York, 4 December 1995). See W.C.G. Burns, 'The Exigencies that Drive Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change Damages at the International Level', 98 ASIL PROC (2004), 223. See also M. Doelle, 'Climate Change and the WTO: Opportunities to Motivate State Action on Climate Change through the World Trade Organization', 13:1 RECIEL (2004), 85.
20. E. Hancock, 'Red Dawn, Blue Thunder, Purple Rain: Corporate Risk of Liability for Global Climate Change and the SEC Disclosure Dilemma', 17 Geo.Int'l Envtl.L.Rev. (2005), 223.
21. Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q (2000).
22. Memorandum from J.Z. Cannon, EPA General Counsel, to C.M. Browner, EPA Administrator, EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources (10 April 1998).
23. 2 a Pollutant and does EPA have the Power to Regulate it? (106th Congress, 1999), available at http://www.house.gov/science/ee_charter_100699.htm.
24. 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g).
25. 42 U.S.C. § 7403(g).
26. Complaint 06-04-03 (4 June 2003). The parties are Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Connecticut and State of Maine, plaintiffs versus Christine Todd Whitman, in her capacity as Administrator of the United States Environment Protection Agency.
27. R. Meltz, 'Global Warming: The Litigation Heats Up', Congressions Research Service Report for Congress (Order Code RL 32764, Library of Congress, 2005).
28. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).
29. Memorandum on EPA's Authority to Impose Mandatory Controls to Address Global Climate Change under the Clean Air Act, from R.E. Fabricant, General Counsel to M.L. Horinko, Acting Administrator (28 August 2003).
30. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA 415 F.3d 50, DC Cir. (15 July 2005).
31. Massachusetts v. EPA, 433 F, 3d 66, DC Cir., 2 December 2005.
32. See R. Meltz, n. 27 above.
33. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, S.C. (1999), c. 33. Order Adding Toxic Substances to Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, 139:36 Canada Gazette Part I (3 September 2005), 2880.
34. See Environment Canada, Toxic Substances List - Updated Schedule 1 as of November 30, 2005 (Environment Canada, 2005), available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/subs_list/Toxicupdate.cfm. See also Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (16 July 2005), available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2005/050716-2_b_e.htm.
35. See Climate Justice Programme, 'Legal Initiatives to Enforce Canada's Duty to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions', press release (31 October 2006), available at http://www.climatelaw.org/media/Canada.
36. These are Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
37. These are American Electric Power Company Inc., American Electric Power Service Corporation, the Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Inc. and Cinergy Corporation.
38. State of Connecticut, et al. v. American Electric Power Company Inc., et al. (2004) 406 F.Supp.2d. 265-274.
39. Open Space Inst. v. American Electric Power Co., No 04 CV 05670 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 21 July 2004.
40. The political question doctrine implies that if an issue is a political issue being debated in political circles, a court may not have authority to decide on that issue. See Opinion and Order by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of the State of Connecticut et al. v. American Electric Power Company, Inc. and Open Space et al. v. American Power Company, Inc., WL 22 49748 (S.D.N.Y.) (15 September 2005), not yet published.
41. The parens patriae principle implies the right of States to assess the needs of its people and to represent their interests in public nuisance cases.
42. Since the parties are not sovereign entities, they can only claim quasi-sovereign status with respect to protecting the interests of those living within their States.
43. In the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, State of Connecticut et al. v. American Electric Power Co. et al.; on Appeal from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 05-5104.
44. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C., Sections 551-559, 701-706, 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301, 5335, 5372, 7521 (2000).
45. B.C. Mank, 'Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All, Injury to None?', 35:1 Environmental Law (2005), 1.
46. Ibid., at 26.
47. C. Maurer and R. Bhandari, The Climate of Export Credit Agencies (World Resources Institute, 2000).
48. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Inc. and City of Boulder Colorado v. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-Import Bank of the United States, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California (26 August) 2002
49. See Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, in Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Inc. and City of Boulder Colorado v. Peter Watson (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and Phillip Lerrill (Export-Import Bank of the United States) (2002) 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 179.
50. Gezetz zur Neugestaltung des Umweltinformationsgesetz und zur Änderung der Rechtsgrundlagen zum Emissionshandel vom 22 Dezember 2004, in force since 14 February 2005, BGB1.I, at 3704. See also EC Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 on access to environmental information, [2003] OJ L41/26.
51. See VG 10A 215.04 Verwaltungsgericht Berlin based on the unofficial translation of the German original by the Climate Justice Programme (3 February 2006). The Court Order is published in Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) (2006), at 850, and see the following article for an evaluation of it: W. Mecklenburg and R. Verheyen, 'Informationen über Exportförderungen als Umweltinformationen', Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) (2006), 781.
52. Australian Conservation Foundation v. Minister of Planning (2004) 140 LGERA 100, available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/ 2004/2029.html.
53. Ibid., at para. 43.
54. Wildlife Preservation Society of Old Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc. v. Minister for Environment and Heritage & Bowen Central Coal Management Pty Ltd & Coal Pty Ltd (Federal Court proceedings No QUD216, 2005), available at http://www.climatelaw.org/media/ Australia.emissions.suit.
55. Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Proserpine/Whitsunday Branch Inc. v. Minister for the Environment & Heritage and Others [2006] FCA 736.
56. Global Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: Australia's Obligations Under the World Heritage Convention, A Report prepared by the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law (Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Australia, 2004), available at http://www.cana.net.au/SCIGL_greatbarrierreef_Final_Report_210904.pdf.
57. CAP C23 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Promulgation Act) 1999.
58. African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights (OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 27 June 1981).
59. Environment Impact Assessment Act, Cap. E 12, Vol. 6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, (2004).
60. Barr. Ikechukwu Okpara et al. v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd et al. (Suit No FHC/CS/B/126/2005, 20 June 2005), filed in the Federal High Court of Nigeria, in the Benin Judicial Division.
61. Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Attorney General of the Federation, Decision of the Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Benin Judicial Division Holden at Court Benin City (Suit No FHC/B/CS/53/05, 14 November 2005).
62. Contempt of court proceedings against Shell, published by the Climate Justice Programme (16 December 2005), available at http://www.climatelaw.org/media/nigeria.shell.contempt.dec05Tgt;.
63. See also R. Verheyen, Climate Change in Courts Worldwide, paper presented to the Conference on Kyoto Plus - Escaping the Climate Trap (28-29 September 2006), organized by Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, WWF and European Climate Forum.
64. S.C. Writ Pet. (Civil), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (29 July 1998), No 13029/1985, AIR 1998 SC 2963, available at http://www.elaw.org/ resources/text.asp?ID=1051; S.C. Writ Pet. (Civil), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (5 April 2002), No 13029/1985, AIR 2002 SC 1696, available at http://www.elaw.org/resources/text.asp?ID=1102.
65. American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Bogota, 30 April 1948), O.A.S. Res. XXX, reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System (OAS/Ser.L/V/I.4 Rev. 9, 2003); 43 AJIL Supp. 133 (1949).
66. 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 (7 December 2005).
67. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Stockholm, 16 November 1972), Article 11.4.
68. See Climate Justice Programme, UNESCO Danger-Listing Petitions Presented (17 November 2004), available at http://www.climatelaw.org/media/ UNESCO.petitions.release.
69. The petitioners include Center for Biological Diversity, David Suzuki Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife - Canada, ForestEthics, Green House Network, Humane Society International/Humane Society of the United States, International Environmental Law Project, Montana Wilderness Association, the Pembina Institute, Wildlands CPR (Center for Preventing Roads) and Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.
70. Petition to the World Heritage Committee Requesting Inclusion Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger as a Result of Climate Change and for Protective Measures and Actions, prepared by the International Environmental Law Project of Lewis and Clark Law School (16 February 2006), available at http://www.climatelaw.org/media/UNESCO%20-%20Waterton- Glacier%20International%20Peace%20Park%20petition
71. Press release entitled 'World Heritage Committee Adopts Strategy on Heritage and Climate Change' (10 June 2006), published by World Heritage, also available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/262.
72. See A. Gillespie, n. 14 above.
73. See W.C.G. Burns, n. 19 above.
74. See M. Doelle, n. 19 above.
75. See R.E. Jacobs, n. 16 above.
76. See E. Hancock, n. 20 above.
77. P.M. Haas, 'Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control', 43:3 International Organization (1989), 377.
78. See R. Verheyen, n. 17 above.
79. New, York, Texas, California, Ohio and Pennsylvania have higher emissions than the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Denmark. See Centre for Clean Air Policy, State and Local Climate Change Policy Actions (Centre for Clean Air Policy, 11 October 2002), at 1.
80. Ibid., at 1.
81. See Executive Order #S-3-05 (1 June 2005), which lists these targets. See, for more details, the website of the Government in California on the issue of climate change, available at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/. See also David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute, The Case for Deep Reductions: Canada's Role in Preventing Dangerous Climate Change (David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute, 2005), at 3-4, available at http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/Ontario/ Case_Deep_Reductions.pdf.
82. See R. Verheyen, n. 63 above.
83. People of the State of California v. General Motors Corporation, Toyota Motor North America Inc., Ford Motor Company, Honda North America Inc., Chrysler Motors Corporation, Nissan North America Inc. (Case no C-06-05755), filed 20 September 2006.