FIGHTING THE CLIMATE CRISIS WITHIN THE LAW (JUDICIAL) AXIS

Öz

The climate crisis increases the risk of threats to both our individual and social existence day by day. However, this threat is far from the attention and solution it deserves. For this reason, states (governments) that are responsible for protecting both the present and the future of humanity refrain from fulfilling this duty or taking on the role of making an effort. The increase in both emissions and global average temperatures from past to present shows that the fight against the climate crisis is only on paper or in rhetoric. This study examines the legal (judicial) solution that the public sees as a way out of the helplessness created by the climate crisis caused by the international system and governments. As a result, as citizens seek more rights and the judiciary decides in favor of the climate crisis, governments will strive for more solutions in tackling the climate crisis. Although this does not hold great promise in terms of the climate crisis, it will be beneficial for progress and awareness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Climate Crisis
• International Law
• International Conventions
• Urgenda
• Neubauer.

HUKUK (YARGI) EKSENİNDE İKLİM KRİZİYLE MÜCADELE

Öz

İklim krizi,gerek bireysel gerekse toplumsal varlığımız üzerindeki tehdit riskini her geçen gün daha da artırmaktadır. Ancak bu tehdit gereken ilgi ve çözümden uzaktır. Bu sebeple insanlığın hem bugünü hem de geleceğini korumakla yükümlü devletler (hükümetler) bu görevinin gereğini yerine getirmekten imtina etmekte ya da çaba sarfediyorum rolüne bürünmektedirler. Bu rolü geçmişten günümüze gelinen noktada gerek emisyonların gerekse küresel ortalama sıcaklıkların artışı iklim kriziyle mücadelenin yalnızca kâğıt üzerinde veya sözde olduğunu genel olarak göstermektedir. Bu çalışma halkın uluslararası sistemin ve hükümetlerin sebep olduğu iklim krizi çözümsüzlüğüne karşı çıkış yolu olarak gördükleri hukuksal (yargısal) çözüm yolunu incelemektedir. Sonuç olarak, vatandaşların daha fazla hak araması ve yargının iklim krizi lehine verdiği kararlar artıkça iklim kriziyle mücadelede hükümetler daha fazla çözüm yolu için çaba göstereceklerdir. Bu durum ise iklim krizi açısından tek başına büyük bir umut vaat etmese de bir ilerleme ve bilinçlenme sağlanmasına yararlı olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İklim Krizi
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Uluslararası Sözleşmeler
• Urgenda
• Neubauer.

Kaynakça

1. Ashe, J. W., Lierop, R., & Cherian, A. (1999). The role of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in the negotiation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Natural Resources Forum, 23(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1999.tb00910.x
2. Bhatti, Y., Lindskow, K., & Pedersen, L. H. (2010). Burden-sharing and global climate negotiations: the case of the Kyoto Protocol. Climate Policy, 10(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2008.0596
3. Bohringer, C. (2003). The Kyoto Protocol: A Review and Perspectives. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(3), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/19.3.451
4. ClientEarth. (2022). 10 Landmark Climate Change Cases. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/10-landmark-climate-change-cases/
5. Climate Change Laws of the World. (2022). Neubauer, et al. v. Germany. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/germany/litigation_cases/neubauer-et-al-v-germany
6. Fortmann, L. (1990). Locality and custom: Non-aboriginal claims to customary usufructuary rights as a source of rural protest. Journal of Rural Studies, 6(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(90)90006-T
7. Ganguly, G., Setzer, J., & Heyvaert, V. (2018). If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(4), 841–868. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy029
8. Gupta, A. (2016). Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol. In Handbook of Environmental and Sustainable Finance (pp. 3–23). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803615-0.00001-7

9. Gürçam, S. (2021). Paris İklim Anlaşması Çerçevesinde Fırsatlar ve Engeller. In B. Aytekin (Ed.), Uluslararası İktisatta Güncel Sorunlar: Dış Ticaret Açısından Önemi (pp. 79–103). İksad.
10. Gürçam, S. (2022). Analysing the Global Fight Against Climate Change and the Turkish Context. Lectio Socialis, 6(2), In-press. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.47478/lectio.1004359
11. Horowitz, C. A. (2016). Paris Agreement. International Legal Materials, 55(4), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900004253
12. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
13. Jang, W.-J., Shim, J.-O., Kim, H.-M., Yoo, S.-Y., & Roh, H.-S. (2019). A review on dry reforming of methane in aspect of catalytic properties. Catalysis Today, 324, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2018.07.032
14. Kotzé, L. J. (2021). Neubauer et al. versus Germany : Planetary Climate Litigation for the Anthropocene? German Law Journal, 22(8), 1423–1444. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.87
15. LSE. (2000). The Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA 1999) (S.C. 1999, c. 33). Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/canada/laws/the-canadian-environmental-protection-act-1999-cepa-1999-s-c-1999-c-33
16. LSE. (2008). Climate Change Act. Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/united-kingdom/laws/climate-change-act-34405aa9-396e-4a78-a662-20cad9696365
17. LSE. (2011). Climate Change Authority Act 2011. Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/australia/laws/climate-change-authority-act-2011
18. LSE. (2014). Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014. Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/australia/laws/carbon-farming-initiative-amendment-bill-2014
19. LSE. (2021a). Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/canada/laws/canadian-net-zero-emissions-accountability-act
20. LSE. (2021b). Environment Act 2021. Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/united-kingdom/laws/environment-act-2021
21. LSE. (2022). Climate Change Laws of the World. https://climate-laws.org/
22. May, J. R., & Daly, E. (2014). Global Environmental Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135559
23. McManus, K. (2009). The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ and the UNFCCC. https://www.mercyworld.org/_uploads/_cknw/files/2012/Link3.pdf
24. Meguro, M. (2020). State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. American Journal of International Law, 114(4), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2020.52
25. Mehta, L., Allouche, J., Nicol, A., & Walnycki, A. (2014). Global environmental justice and the right to water: The case of peri-urban Cochabamba and Delhi. Geoforum, 54, 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.014
26. Pečujlić, A. N. (2021). Outer space as a global common. Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development. https://www.cirsd.org/en/expert-analysis/outer-space-as-a-global-common
27. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. (2022a). Neubauer, et al. v. Almanya. http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/neubauer-et-al-v-germany/
28. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. (2022b). Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands. http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/
29. Setzer, J., & Vanhala, L. C. (2019). Climate change litigation: A review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. WIREs Climate Change, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.580
30. Spash, C. L. (2016). This Changes Nothing: The Paris Agreement to Ignore Reality. Globalizations, 13(6), 928–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1161119
31. Spier, J. (2020). ‘The “Strongest” Climate Ruling Yet’: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment. Netherlands International Law Review, 67(2), 319–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-020-00172-5
32. Timperley, J. (2021). The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance — and how to fix it. Nature, 598(7881), 400–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02846-3
33. UNEP. (2019). Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report. https://www.unep.org/resources/assessment/environmental-rule-law-first-global-report
34. UNEP. (2020). Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
35. United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
36. United Nations. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
37. United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
38. United States Congress. (1990). Global Change Research Act of 1990. LSE. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/united-states-of-america/laws/global-change-research-act-of-1990
39. United States Congress. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. LSE. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/united-states-of-america/laws/energy-independence-and-security-act-of-2007
40. United States Congress. (2021). Consolidated Appropriations Act. LSE. https://climate-laws.org/geographies/united-states-of-america/laws/consolidated-appropriations-act-2021