强有力的科学证据证实,气候变化现在是公共卫生紧急情况。越来越多,针对政府和公司的气候诉讼利用了国际人权,环境和气候法律和政策,以寻求对破坏气候和危害健康的行动负责。气候变化对健康的影响使诉讼成为追求正义和战略性挑战法律制度的重要手段。然而,文献中很少有关于公共卫生在气候诉讼中发挥的作用的文献,在这种情况下,公共卫生叙述的法律权重也很少。因此,我们评估了法院在何种程度上在法律裁决中使用了公共健康损害,并试图提供切实可行的建议,以解决在以公共健康为中心的框架中定位法律论点的障碍.
我们审查了法律数据库,以识别所有公开报道的信息,记录在案,1990年至2020年9月期间在任何国家或司法管辖区提起的气候诉讼案件。对于确认的1641例,我们量化了明确或隐含地提出健康问题的病例的频率.
案例数量呈上升趋势,特别是在高收入国家。由于大多数案件是在过去三年中提出的,因此在一半以上的案件中仍有待解决。案件主要基于气候和人权法,由主要针对政府的广泛团体和个人提出。大约一半的判决案件有利于原告。基于此,我们选择了与公共卫生直接相关的65例病例.我们发现经济力量和健康风险的定价起着关键作用,因为诉讼当事人质疑法院对健康影响的责任作出裁决。
虽然法院接受公共卫生科学,需要进行重大的法律改革,以加强在气候诉讼案件的法律判决中利用公共卫生证据。将公共卫生任务纳入新的以生态为中心的法律范式,将优化其促进人类福祉的潜力——这是支持国际法的核心目标,人权,和公共卫生。可以加强现有的法律理论和实践,以增加气候法律诉讼中公共卫生论点的权重,从而确保气候诉讼中的法律裁决优先。保护和促进公众健康。
Strong scientific evidence affirms that climate change is now a public health emergency. Increasingly, climate litigation brought against governments and corporations utilizes international human rights, environmental and climate laws and policies to seek accountability for climate-destructive and health-harming actions. The health impacts of climate change make litigation an important means of pursuing justice and strategically challenging legal systems. Yet there is scant documentation in the literature of the role that public health has played in climate litigation and the legal weight public health narratives are given in such contexts. Therefore, we assessed to what extent courts of law have used public health harm in legal adjudication and sought to provide practical recommendations to address barriers to positioning legal arguments in public health-centric frames.
We reviewed legal databases to identify all publicly reported, documented, cases of climate litigation filed in any country or jurisdiction between 1990 and September 2020. For the 1641 cases identified, we quantified the frequency of cases where health concerns were explicitly or implicitly raised.
Case numbers are trending upwards, notably in high income countries. Resolution remains pending in over half of cases as the majority were initiated in the past three years. Cases were primarily based in climate and human rights law and brought by a wide range of groups and individuals predominantly against governments. About half of the decided cases found in favour for the plaintiffs. Based on this, we selected the 65 cases that were directly linked to public health. We found economic forces and pricing of health risks play a key role, as courts are challenged by litigants to adjudicate on the responsibility for health impacts.
While courts of law are receptive to public health science, significant legal reform is needed to enhance leveraging of public health evidence in legal judgements of climate litigation cases. The integration of a public health mandate into a new eco-centric legal paradigm will optimize its potential to promote human well-being-the core objective underpinning both international law, human rights, and public health. Existing legal doctrines and practices can be enhanced to increase the weight of public health arguments in climate legal action and consequently ensure legal rulings in climate litigation prioritize, protect and promote public health.