侵权法与气候变化

W. Bonython
{"title":"侵权法与气候变化","authors":"W. Bonython","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v40i3.6043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tort law presents doctrinal barriers to plaintiffs seeking remedies for climate change harms in common law jurisdictions. However, litigants are likely to persist in pursuing tortious causes of action in the absence of persuasive policy and regulatory alternatives. Ongoing litigation in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd in New Zealand and Sharma v Minister for Environment in Australia highlights tensions between torts doctrine and climate change litigation in both countries. Regardless of its ultimate outcome, that litigation provides a valuable opportunity to integrate theoretical questions about the legitimacy of judicial lawmaking, and intersectional critical legal perspectives, into the teaching of torts. ","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tort Law and Climate Change\",\"authors\":\"W. Bonython\",\"doi\":\"10.38127/uqlj.v40i3.6043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Tort law presents doctrinal barriers to plaintiffs seeking remedies for climate change harms in common law jurisdictions. However, litigants are likely to persist in pursuing tortious causes of action in the absence of persuasive policy and regulatory alternatives. Ongoing litigation in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd in New Zealand and Sharma v Minister for Environment in Australia highlights tensions between torts doctrine and climate change litigation in both countries. Regardless of its ultimate outcome, that litigation provides a valuable opportunity to integrate theoretical questions about the legitimacy of judicial lawmaking, and intersectional critical legal perspectives, into the teaching of torts. \",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v40i3.6043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v40i3.6043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

侵权法为原告在普通法管辖区寻求气候变化危害补救措施提供了理论障碍。然而,在缺乏有说服力的政策和监管替代方案的情况下,诉讼当事人可能会坚持追求侵权诉讼理由。在新西兰Smith诉恒天然合作集团有限公司案和澳大利亚Sharma诉环境部长案中正在进行的诉讼突显了两国侵权行为理论与气候变化诉讼之间的紧张关系。无论最终结果如何,该诉讼都提供了一个宝贵的机会,可以将有关司法立法合法性的理论问题和交叉的批判性法律观点纳入侵权行为的教学中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tort Law and Climate Change
Tort law presents doctrinal barriers to plaintiffs seeking remedies for climate change harms in common law jurisdictions. However, litigants are likely to persist in pursuing tortious causes of action in the absence of persuasive policy and regulatory alternatives. Ongoing litigation in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd in New Zealand and Sharma v Minister for Environment in Australia highlights tensions between torts doctrine and climate change litigation in both countries. Regardless of its ultimate outcome, that litigation provides a valuable opportunity to integrate theoretical questions about the legitimacy of judicial lawmaking, and intersectional critical legal perspectives, into the teaching of torts. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1