A comparative study of the judicial construction of scientific credibility in climate litigation

Abstract

Although the value of climate science in the courtroom is widely acknowledged, few studies have evaluated how judges achieve a scientifically sound grounding for their rulings. Drawing insights from legal culture and science and technology studies, we compare the determination of scientific credibility in leading climate cases in Europe and the United States. Judges on both sides of the Atlantic answer similar questions about scientific facts and commonly use authoritative reports and testimonies from qualified experts. However, while judges in the Netherlands, France and Germany find value in the political mandates of international or national bodies that generate scientific reports, American judges seek to keep scientific expertise from the influence of policy considerations. We make sense of this difference by identifying two competing ideals of expertise, namely the ‘view of everyone’ ideal in Europe and the ‘view from nowhere’ ideal in the United States. Although climate science is often articulated in universalist terms, the cultural embeddedness of adjudication means that the evaluation of credibility varies by jurisdiction.