新型气候侵权?新西兰上诉法院史密斯诉恒天然合作集团有限公司等案的判决

Q2 Social Sciences Environmental Law Review Pub Date : 2022-08-22 DOI:10.1177/14614529221111851
C. Foster
{"title":"新型气候侵权?新西兰上诉法院史密斯诉恒天然合作集团有限公司等案的判决","authors":"C. Foster","doi":"10.1177/14614529221111851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Smith v Fonterra the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal struck out all causes of action in proceedings seeking orders that seven New Zealand companies cease direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 grounded in the three distinct claims of negligence, public nuisance and a proposed novel tort referred to as “breach of duty”. The Court of Appeal's judgment is under appeal before the New Zealand Supreme Court. This commentary seeks to open up discussion around the reasons given for the various aspects of the judgment. In particular the commentary puts the view that there is scope for the creation of a novel common law climate tort. This tort must be forward-looking and preventive in orientation and may differ fundamentally from existing torts.","PeriodicalId":52213,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Law Review","volume":"98 1","pages":"224 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel climate tort? The New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited and others\",\"authors\":\"C. Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614529221111851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Smith v Fonterra the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal struck out all causes of action in proceedings seeking orders that seven New Zealand companies cease direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 grounded in the three distinct claims of negligence, public nuisance and a proposed novel tort referred to as “breach of duty”. The Court of Appeal's judgment is under appeal before the New Zealand Supreme Court. This commentary seeks to open up discussion around the reasons given for the various aspects of the judgment. In particular the commentary puts the view that there is scope for the creation of a novel common law climate tort. This tort must be forward-looking and preventive in orientation and may differ fundamentally from existing torts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"224 - 234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221111851\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529221111851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在史密斯诉恒天然(Smith v . Fonterra)一案中,新西兰高等法院和上诉法院驳回了诉讼程序中的所有诉因,该诉讼要求7家新西兰公司在2030年前停止直接和间接温室气体排放,理由是疏忽、公共妨害和拟议中的新型侵权行为,即“违反职责”。上诉法院的判决正在向新西兰最高法院提出上诉。这篇评注试图围绕判决的各个方面给出的理由展开讨论。评注特别提出了一种观点,即存在创造一种新的普通法气候侵权的余地。这种侵权行为必须具有前瞻性和预防性,可能与现有侵权行为有根本区别。
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
Novel climate tort? The New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited and others
In Smith v Fonterra the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal struck out all causes of action in proceedings seeking orders that seven New Zealand companies cease direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 grounded in the three distinct claims of negligence, public nuisance and a proposed novel tort referred to as “breach of duty”. The Court of Appeal's judgment is under appeal before the New Zealand Supreme Court. This commentary seeks to open up discussion around the reasons given for the various aspects of the judgment. In particular the commentary puts the view that there is scope for the creation of a novel common law climate tort. This tort must be forward-looking and preventive in orientation and may differ fundamentally from existing 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
Environmental Law Review
Environmental Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Book Review: The North Sea System for Petroleum Production, State Intervention on the British and Norwegian Continental Shelves by Brent F Nelsen and Tina Soliman Hunter Ecological constitutionalism within the Canadian context: Charter-ing international standards of the human right to a healthy environment From farm to fork? Brexit and the International Plant Protection Convention Transfer of ESTs in international law: A climate justice approach Biodiversity management challenges: A policy brief
×
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