Courts and scholars have interpreted open-ended legal norms as imposing due diligence obligations on States and other entities to mitigate climate change. These obligations can be applied in two alternative ways: through holistic decisions, where courts determine the level of mitigation action required of defendants; or through atomistic decisions, where courts identify some of the measures that the defendant must take. This article shows that, whilst most holistic cases fail on jurisdictional grounds, atomistic cases frequently succeed. Overall, it is argued that atomistic litigation strategies provide more realistic and effective ways for plaintiffs to prompt enhanced mitigation action.
CITATION STYLE
Mayer, B. (2023). PROMPTING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION THROUGH LITIGATION. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 72(1), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000458
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.