Opinion: What is wrong with climate litigation?
Is environmental protection so different from safeguards usually provided by judges?
In the coming months, in partnership with JOTA and with the support of the ICS – Instituto Clima e Sociedade (Climate and Society Institute), Conectas is publishing a series of articles that will seek to increase the dissemination of legal content in the field of law and climate. Local and international specialists will present themes related to climate change and human rights, international law on climate change, sustainable funding, strategic litigation, the regulation of trade in greenhouse gas emissions, among others.
Take a look at the article in the series written by Conrado Mendes, Professor of Constitutional Law at the USP Law School and Marco Antônio Alberto, doctoral student and researcher in the Department of State Law at USP.
What is unusual about climate litigation? What makes it different from any other demand presented to the Judiciary? What is the explanation for the wariness of legal professionals – Judges, Administrators, Lawyers and Scholars – with regards to actions aimed at a policy to defend the environment from climate change?
In response, we will consider an unsuspected premise. Climate policy is state policy. This is not insignificant, or rhetorical, as it means that: (i) climate policy is public policy; (ii) climate policy is an obligation that can be legally attributed to the state.
