Framing Time in Climate Change Litigation
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1063Gako-hitzak:
Time, Temporality, Framing, Climate Change Litigation, Legal MobilizationLaburpena
Time is of the essence in relation to climate change. However, there have been few studies of how time features as a frame in legal mobilization against climate change. The current article explores temporal framing in a number of high profile climate litigation cases, including Urgenda, Kivalina, Kingsnorth, and the current US Our Children’s Trust proceedings. I argue that there is a tension between a future-looking scientific framing of time and both an environmentalist policy framing of time and a present-based scientific time frame. Under future-looking scientific framing, the effects of dangerous climate change have not yet occurred and remain some way off in the ‘modelled’ future. Under an environmentalist policy time frame, action is needed immediately, now in the present, and with a present scientific time frame climate harm is already happening or is imminent.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 578
Erreferentziak
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
##submission.downloads##
Argitaratuta
##submission.howToCite##
Zenbakia
Atala
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-nd4.footer##OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
