Framing Time in Climate Change Litigation

Autores/as

  • Chris Hilson

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1063

Palabras clave:

tiempo, temporalidad, designación temporal, litigios sobre cambio climático, movilización legal

Resumen



El tiempo es esencial en relación con el cambio climático. Sin embargo, se han hecho pocos estudios sobre la manera en que se designan los marcos temporales en la movilización legal contra el cambio climático. El presente artículo examina la designación de marcos temporales en una serie de casos jurídicos contra el cambio climático de gran notoriedad pública, como Urgenda, Kivalina, Kingsnorth, y los actuales procesos de Our Children's Trust en EEUU. Argumento que hay una tensión entre el marco temporal científico de cara al futuro y el marco temporal de la ciencia basada en el momento actual. Según el marco científico a largo plazo, los efectos peligrosos del cambio climático todavía no han ocurrido y quedan a cierta distancia en un futuro proyectado. Bajo el prisma de la política medioambiental, se necesita una acción inmediata, ahora, en el presente; y, de acuerdo con un marco científico actual, el daño climático ya está sucediendo o es inminente.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

        Metrics

Estadísticas globales ℹ️

Totales acumulados desde su publicación
1675
Visualizaciones
720
Descargas
2395
Total

Biografía del autor/a

Chris Hilson

Law, Professor of Law

Citas

Caney, S., 2014. Climate change, intergenerational equity and the social discount rate. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13(4), 320–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X14542566

Carswell, C., 2016. In Washington, activists and the “necessity defense” on trial. High Country News [online], 2 February. Available from: https://www.hcn.org/issues/48.2/in-washington-the-necessity-defense-on-trial-alongside-activists [Accessed 1 June 2018].

Climate Action Tracker, n.d. Addressing Global Warming [online]. Available from: https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ [Accessed 22 May 2018].

Crawford, A., 2015 Temporality in restorative justice: On time, timing and time-consciousness. Theoretical Criminology [online], 19(4), 470-490. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362480615575804?journalCode=tcra [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615575804

de Sadeleer, N., 2016. Climate change, uncertainties and the precautionary principle. Jean Monnet Working Paper Series, Environment and Internal Market [online], 2016/1. Available from: http://www.tradevenvironment.eu/uploads/2016_CC_PP.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2018].

Fisher, E., 2002. Precaution, precaution everywhere: Developing a “common understanding” of the precautionary principle in the European Community. Maastricht Journal of European & Comparative Law [online], 9(1), 7-28. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1023263X0200900102 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X0200900102

Fisher, E., Scotford, E. and Barritt, E., 2017. The legally disruptive nature of climate change. The Modern Law Review [online], 80(2), 173–201. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12251 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12251

Greenpeace UK, 2008. Kingsnorth trial day six: the summing up. Facebook [online], 8 September. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/notes/greenpeace-uk/kingsnorth-trial-day-six-the-summing-up/25875159538/ [Accessed 22 May 2018].

Hänggli, R., and Kriesi, H., 2012. Frame construction and frame promotion (strategic framing choices). American Behavioral Scientist [online], 56(3), 260-278. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764211426325 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426325

Hansen, J.E., 2015. Statement of witness James E. Hansen [Kingsnorth case] (online). Available from: http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/Hansen_Kingsnorth_testimony.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2018].

Hansen, J.E., 2017. Declaration of Dr. James E. Hansen in Support of Plaintiffs [case Juliana v US] (online). New York, 11 August. Available from: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150812_FINAL_HANSEN_DEC_FOR_US_DISTRICT_OREGON_9pm.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2018].

Hayes, G., 2013- Negotiating proximity: Expert testimony and collective memory in the trials of environmental activists in France and the United Kingdom. Law & Policy [online], 35(3), 208-235. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12004 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12004

Hilson, C., 2012. UK climate change litigation: between hard and soft framing. In: S. Farrall, T. Ahmed and D. French, eds. Criminological and legal consequences of climate change. Oxford: Hart, pp. 47-61.

Lees, E., 2017. Responsibility and liability for climate loss and damage after Paris. Climate Policy [online], 17(1), 59-70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1197095 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1197095

Long, L.N., and Hamilton, T., 2017. Case Comment—Washington v. Brockway: One Small Step Closer to Climate Necessity. McGill Journal of Sustainable Development Law [online], 13(1), 151-179. Available from: https://www.mcgill.ca/mjsdl/files/mjsdl/hamilton_and_long_march_31.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2018].

McKinnon, C., 2012. Climate change and future justice: Precaution, compensation and triage. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802205

Nathanson, R., 2015. Climate-change activists consider the necessity defense. The New Yorker [online], 11 April. Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/climate-change-activists-consider-the-necessity-defense [Accessed 1 June 2018].

Osofsky, H.M., 2005. The geography of climate change litigation: Implications for transnational regulatory governance. Washington University Law Quarterly [online], 83(6), 1789-1855. Available from: https://wustllawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/3-40.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2018].

Our Children’s Trust, n.d. Securing the Legal Right to a Safe Climate and a Healthy Atmosphere for all Present and Future Generations [homepage] (online). Available from: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/ [Accessed 22 May 2018].

Page, E., 2006. Climate change, justice and future generations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845424718

Peel, J., Godden, L., and Keenan, R.J., 2012. Climate change law in an era of multi-level governance. Transnational Environmental Law [online], 1(2), 245-280. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102512000052 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102512000052

Richardson, B.J., 2017a. Doing time – The temporalities of environmental law. In: L. Kotze, ed., Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene. Oxford: Hart, pp. 55-74.

Richardson, B.J., 2017b. Time and Environmental Law: Telling Nature’s Time. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108120678

Rogers, N., 2013. Climate change litigation and the awfulness of lawfulness. Alternative Law Journal [online], 38, 20-24. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1037969X1303800105 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1303800105

Rogers, N., 2015. If you obey all of the rules you miss all the fun: Climate change litigation, climate change activism and lawfulness. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law [online], 13(1), 179-199. Available from: https://epubs.scu.edu.au/law_pubs/417/ [Accessed 1 June 2018].

Schwarz, M., 2010. The Drax 29 and the Kingsnorth 6: Different defences, different outcomes. ELFline [online], spring-summer. Available from: https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/elf_line_article_Spring_Summer_2010__2_.pdf [Accessed 1 June 2018].

The Constitution [of Norway], as laid down on 17 May 1814 by the Constituent Assembly at Eidsvoll and subsequently amended, most recently in May 2018 [online], Article 112. Available from: https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/english/constitutionenglish.pdf [Accessed 5 June 2018].

Urgenda, 2014. Summons in the Case: Urgenda Foundation v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Final draft Translation) [online]. 25 June. Available from: http://www.urgenda.nl/wp-content/uploads/Translation-Summons-in-case-Urgenda-v-Dutch-State-v.25.06.10.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2018].

Vanhala, L., and Hestbaek, C., 2016. Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Global Environmental Politics [online], 16(4), 111-129. Available from: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379

Vanhala, L., and Hilson, C., 2013. Climate change litigation: Symposium introduction. Law & Policy [online], 35(3), 141-149. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12007 [Accessed 1 June 2018]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12007

Descargas

Publicado

01-08-2019

Cómo citar

Hilson, C. (2019) «Framing Time in Climate Change Litigation», Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 9(3), pp. 361–379. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1063.