Abstract
Climate change requires constitutional responses. The fundamental rights or environmental protection clauses contained in most constitutions provide a basis for this endeavour. The particular difficulties of determining the constitutionally required level of climate protection, climate protection’s dependence on scientific knowledge and international efforts, and the need to take the time dimension into account are specific challenges for any constitutional order. This article addresses these basic questions on constitutional law and presents the answers given by the Federal Constitutional Court in its landmark climate decision regarding the German Constitution.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For constitutions rooted in the liberal-democratic tradition see Grimm (1991), pp. 116–119.
- 2.
- 3.
On the impact of the right to human dignity e.g. The Lahore High Court, Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, Judgement of 25.1.2018, W.P. No. 25501/2015, pp. 10 f.
- 4.
Emphasising the necessity of safeguarding human rights in mitigation and adaptation activities UNEP (2015), p. 26. The Paris Agreement also expressly recognizes in its preamble, that “Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights”.
- 5.
From the extensive literature see Posner (2007), p. 1925; Preston (2011), p. 3; Markell and Ruhl (2012), p. 15; Okubo (2013), p. 741; Peel and Osofsky (2015); Burger and Grundlach (2017); Setzer and Bangalore (2017), p. 175; Bouwer (2018), p. 347; Saurer (2018), p. 679; Graser (2019), p. 271; Burgers (2020), p. 55; Mitkidis and Valkanou (2020), p. 11; Setzer and Higham (2021); Peel and Markey-Towler (2021), p. 1484; Wagner (2021), p. 2256; Franzius (2021a), p. 121; Payandeh (2021), p. 64; Rodi and Kalis (2022), p. 5; de Vilchez Moragues (2022); Lange and Lippold (2022), p. 685; Fellenberg (2022), p. 913; Wegener (2022), p. 425; and further contributions in Kahl and Weller (2021). For a special focus on the post-Paris situation Wegener (2020), p. 17; Beauregard et al. (2021), p. 652; Preston (2021), p. 1; Saiger (2022). An instructive review of the research on courts and litigants in climate governance is provided by Setzer and Vanhala (2019), pp. 1–19; Peel and Osofsky (2020), pp. 22–26.
- 6.
In particular, see articles in Alogna et al. (2021); Sindico and Mbengue (2021); Lin and Kysar (2022); and furthermore Vanhala (2013) p. 447; Peel and Lin (2019), p. 679; Setzer and Benjamin (2019), p. 77; Zhao et al. (2019), p. 349; Saiger (2020), pp. 51 ff.; Chaturvedi (2021), p. 1459; Torre-Schaub (2021), p. 1445; Voigt (2021), p. 697; Cameron and Weyman (2022), p. 195; Kotzé and Du Plessis (2022), p. 615.
- 7.
- 8.
Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021—1 BvR 2656/18, paras. 1–270 (hereafter cited as: BVerfG, Climate Decision). The decision is officially published in BVerfGE 157, pp. 30–177. A translation in English is available at http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618en.html (last accessed 3 October 2022).
- 9.
This decision has triggered a controversial debate in German literature. For rather critical views Calliess (2021b), p. 355; Fassbender (2021), p. 2085; Hofmann (2021), p. 1587; Kloepfer and Wiedmann (2021), p. 1333; Möllers and Weinberg (2021) p. 1069; Polzin (2021) p. 1089; Ladeur (2022), p. 13; Lenz (2022), p. 73; von Weschpfennig (2022), paras. 19–24; more ambivalent Buser (2021), p. 1409; Krämer-Hoppe (2021), p. 1393; Ekardt and Heß (2021), p. 579; Berkemann (2021), p. 701; Stark (2021), p. 237; Minnerop (2022), p. 135; Kirchhoff (2022), pp. 9–31; Volkmann (2022), p. 5; Winter (2022a), p. 209; differentiating Kahl (2022a), p. 2; Franzius (2021b), p. 136; for a decidedly positive evaluation Eifert (2021a), p. 1085; Schlacke (2021), p. 912; Sinder (2021), p. 1078; Wahnschaffe and Lücke (2021), p. 1099; Aust (2022), p. 150; von Landenberg-Roberg (2022), pp. 269–276. Defending the decision against points of criticism that were regularly voiced Eifert (2022b), pp. 542–545.
- 10.
According to Ghaleigh et al. (2022), p. 7, these include: Algeria, Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Thailand, Tunisia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Zambia.
- 11.
Art. 414 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
For an instructive overview see Boyd (2015), pp. 171–186.
- 15.
Jaimes (2015), pp. 170–181; Lewis (2018), pp. 157–165; Bickenbach (2020), p. 170; However, other fundamental rights can also be affected such as the right to private life, family and home or, especially in cases involving indigenous communities, rights concerning the preservation of culture (cf. UN HR Committee, Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019). Kahl (2022b) observes that in absence of independent rights to climate protection the normative allocation of climate change-related human rights impacts are arbitrary.
- 16.
See McInerney-Lankford et al. (2011), pp. 18 f.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
However, individual standing provisions might also be narrowly interpretated or applied. For instance, access to the CJEU is particularly restricted by its jurisprudence on individual standing. For a critique, see Winter (2022b), pp. 367 ff. See also the decision of the Swiss Supreme Court, Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications, judgement of 20.5.2020, 1C_37/2019, where the court held that the plaintiffs’ asserted rights had not been affected with sufficient intensity. For a critical discussion see Reich (2020), pp. 501 ff.
- 20.
Data collected from the reported national GHG inventories can be accessed via https://di.unfccc.int/time_series.
- 21.
See e.g. Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 24.06.2015, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, paras. 4.79 and 4.90; Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 5.7.8.
- 22.
See Supreme Court of United States, Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Judgement of 2.4.2007, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), p. 23.
- 23.
- 24.
IPCC (2014), p. 17.
- 25.
IPCC (2021), p. 5.
- 26.
IPCC (2021), pp. 630–635.
- 27.
IPCC (2018), pp. 7–11.
- 28.
- 29.
von Landenberg-Roberg (2022), p. 280.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Wegener (2019), p. 15.
- 33.
- 34.
See also Gross (2019), p. 362.
- 35.
According to Article 20a of the Basic Law, the state shall protect “mindful also of its responsibility towards future generations” the “natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and, in accordance with law and justice, by executive and judicial action, all within the framework of the constitutional order”. For an analysis of the provision, see Durner (2021), paras. 61–71; Schulze-Fielitz (2015), paras. 23–54; with special regard to climate protection Gross (2009), pp. 366 f.; Härtel (2020), pp. 578 f.
- 36.
Arguing for the introduction of a procedural fundamental right to environmental protection, Calliess (2021a), pp. 323 ff.
- 37.
In Germany the global climate was recognised early on by constitutional jurisprudence as an object of protection under Article 20a of the Basic Law without any special reasoning. See BVerfGE 118, 79 (110 f.); 137, 350 (368 f. paras. 47, 378 para. 73); 155, 238 (278 para. 100).
- 38.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 198.
- 39.
IPCC (2021), pp. 27–31.
- 40.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 198.
- 41.
Hinting in this direction High Court of New Zealand, Thomson v. The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Judgment of 2.11.2017, CIV 2015-485-919 [2017] NZHC 733, para. 133.
- 42.
- 43.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 205; Britz (2022), pp. 827 f.
- 44.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 211.
- 45.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.
- 46.
For a positive evaluation in this regard, see also Gärditz (2021), pp. 314 f.
- 47.
§ 1 Federal Climate Change Act reads: “The purpose of this Act is to provide protection from the effects of worldwide climate change by ensuring achievement of the national climate targets and compliance with the European targets. The ecological, social and economic impacts shall be taken into consideration. The basis of the Act is the obligation according to the Paris Agreement, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C and, if possible, to 1.5°C, above the pre-industrial level so as to minimise the effects of worldwide climate change, as well as the commitment made by the Federal Republic of Germany at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on 23 September 2019 to pursue the long-term goal of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050.”
- 48.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 210.
- 49.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 211.
- 50.
IPCC (2018), pp. 5 f.
- 51.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 211.
- 52.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 213.
- 53.
See also Schlacke (2022), p. 123.
- 54.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 201.
- 55.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 201.
- 56.
- 57.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 203.
- 58.
See also Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 5.7.7.
- 59.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 201.
- 60.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.
- 61.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.
- 62.
- 63.
References to the budget approach have also been made in, among others, Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 4.6, 7.4.3 and implicitly in The Supreme Court of Ireland, Friends of the Irish Environment v The Government of Ireland, Judgement of 31.7.2020, Appeal No 205/19, no. 4.6.
- 64.
Examples are Germany and France. Such a use, however, enables courts to evaluate climate protection measures against the legislative budget targets (cf. Conseil dÉtat, Decision of 1.7.2021, 427301 (Grand-Synthe II)).
- 65.
In the absence of alternative control variables, it is highly reasonable for the legislature to also take this approach, but it is not obliged by the constitution to do so (see BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 218). The budget approach is therefore not constitutionalised, but only used in the context of necessary scientific controls. As long as there is no alternative, however, this boundary is blurred in practical applications. For a constitutionalisation of the budget approach argues Abel (2022), p. 336.
- 66.
Clearly stated in BVerfG (Chamber), Decision of 18.1.2022, 1 BvR 1565/21, para. 5; Britz (2022), p. 832.
- 67.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.
- 68.
SRU (2020), pp. 5–58.
- 69.
SRU (2020), pp. 15–20.
- 70.
- 71.
For a more detailed analysis, see von Landenberg-Roberg (2021), pp. 124–139.
- 72.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 230 f.
- 73.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.
- 74.
See only Brown (2008), pp. 195 ff.; Bodansky (2010), pp. 519–522; McInerney-Lankford et al. (2011), pp. 11 ff.; Jaimes (2015), pp. 165 ff.; Peel and Osofsky (2018), pp. 42 ff.; Gross (2021), pp. 84 ff.; for a detailed analysis with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, Peters (2021), pp. 177 ff.
- 75.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 163.
- 76.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 157; Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 24.6.2015, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, no. 4.75.; Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 7.5.2.
- 77.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 150.
- 78.
See also UN HR Committee, Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019, para. 8.3 with respect to Art. 6 ICCPR.
- 79.
Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 24.6.2015, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, no. 4.79; Gross (2020), pp. 340 f.
- 80.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 149.
- 81.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 152.
- 82.
BVerfGE 96, 56 (64); BVerfG 121, 317 (356); BVerfG 142, 313 (337 para. 70).
- 83.
BVerfGE 142, 313 (337 f. para. 70); BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 152.
- 84.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 155 f.
- 85.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 157.
- 86.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 165.
- 87.
See e.g. Bowen and Fankhauser (2017), pp. 123–135.
- 88.
Bumke and Voßkuhle (2019), paras. 123–160.
- 89.
- 90.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 120, 192.
- 91.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 192–194.
- 92.
IPCC (2022), pp. 21–43.
- 93.
Britz (2022), p. 832.
- 94.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 187.
- 95.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 116–123, 183.
- 96.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 184–189.
- 97.
BVerfGE 6, 32 (41). For further discussion see Eifert (2021b), paras. 84 ff.
- 98.
The German Federal Constitutional Court has also included a time dimension in the environmental protection clause. The obligation to sustainably protect the environment prevents its use in such a way that future generations can only preserve it at the price of radical abstinence of their own (BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 193).
- 99.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 192 ff., 243.
- 100.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 246.
- 101.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 243 ff.
- 102.
BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 252 ff.
- 103.
Bumke and Voßkuhle (2019), paras. 1413–1440.
References
Abel P (2022) Parlamentarische CO2-Budgethoheit und -Budgetverantwortung. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 32(6):333–341
Alogna I, Bakker C, Gauci JP (eds) (2021) Climate change litigation: global perspectives. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
Aust H (2022) Case note: Climate Protection Act Case, Federal Constitutional Court, Order of the First Senate, March 24, 2021. Am J Int Law 116(1):150–157
Barak A (2012) Proportionality (2). In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 738–755
Beauregard C, Carlson D, Robinson S, Cobb C, Patton M (2021) Climate justice and rights-based litigation in a post-Paris word. Clim Policy 21(5):652–665
Berkemann J (2021) “Freiheitschancen über die Generationen” (Art. 20a GG) – Intertemporaler Klimaschutz im Paradigmenwechsel. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 74(16):701–705
Bickenbach C (2020) Subjektiv-öffentliches Recht auf Klimaschutz? Die Erderwärmung vor den Gerichten. JuristenZeitung 75(4):168–177
Birchler A (2020) Climate change, resulting natural disasters and the legal responsibility of states: an international law perspective. Intersentia, Cambridge
Bodansky D (2010) Introduction: climate change and human rights: unpacking the issues. Georgia J Int Comp Law 38(3):511–524
Bodle R, Oberthür S (2017) Legal form of the Paris Agreement and nature of its obligations. In: Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on climate change. Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–103
Bouwer K (2018) The unsexy future of climate change litigation. J Environ Law 30(3):483–506
Bowen A, Fankhauser S (2017) Good practice in low-carbon policy. In: Averchenkova A, Fankhauser S, Nachmany M (eds) Trends in climate change legislation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Boyd D (2015) Constitutions, human rights, and the environment: national approaches. In: Grear A, Kotzé LJ (eds) Research handbook on human rights and the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 170–199
Braig KF, Ehlers-Hofherr A (2020) Diese andere Potenzielle Katastrophe: Wie kann der EGMR dazu beitragen, die Klimakrise einzudämmen? Natur und Recht 42(9):589–595
Britz G (2022) Klimaschutz in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 41(12):825–834
Brown D (2008) The case for understanding inadequate climate change strategies as human rights violations. In: Westra I, Bosselmann K (eds) Reconciling human existence with ecological integrity. Routledge, London, pp 195–214
Bumke C, Voßkuhle A (2019) German constitutional law: introduction, cases, and principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Burger M, Grundlach J (2017) The status of climate change litigation – a global review. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=sabin_climate_change. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022
Burgers L (2020) Should judges make climate change law? Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):55–75
Buser A (2021) Of carbon budgets, factual uncertainties, and intergenerational equity – the German Constitutional Court’s climate decision. German Law J 22(8):1409–1422
Calliess C (2021a) Klimaschutz und Grundrechtsschutz, Brauchen wir ein Grundrecht auf Umweltschutz? Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 32(6):323–332
Calliess C (2021b) Das “Klimaurteil” des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: “Versubjektivierung” des Art. 20a GG? Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 32(6):323–332
Cameron C, Weyman R (2022) Recent youth-led and rights-based climate change litigation in Canada: reconciling justiciability, charter claims and procedural choices. J Environ Law 34(1):195–207
Chaturvedi E (2021) Climate change litigation: Indian perspective. German Law J 22(8):1459–1470
Cremer W (2019) Verfassungskräftiger Klimaschutz nach Maßgabe völkerrechtlich verbindlicher Verpflichtungen und Ziele. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 30(5):278–283
De Vilchez Moragues P (2022) Climate in court: defining state obligations on global warming through domestic climate litigation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Durner W (2021) § 26 Umweltverfassungsrecht. In: Herdegen M, Masing J, Poscher R, Gärditz KF (eds) Handbuch des Verfassungsrechts, Darstellung in transnationaler Perspektive. C. H. Beck, München, pp 1623–1666
Edenhofer O, Flachsland C, Jakob M, Lessmann K (2015) The atmosphere as a global commons. In: Bernard L, Semmler W (eds) The Oxford handbook of the macroeconomics of global warming. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 260–296
Eifert M (2021a) Verfassungsauftrag zum freiheitsschonenden Klimaschutz: Der Klimaschutz-Beschluss des BVerfG. Juristische Ausbildung 43(9):1085–1098
Eifert M (2021b) § 18 Persönliche Freiheit. In: Herdegen M, Masing J, Poscher R, Gärditz KF (eds) Handbuch des Verfassungsrechts, Darstellung in transnationaler Perspektive. Verlag C. H. Beck, München, pp 1163–1228
Eifert M (2022a) The German Constitutional Court’s KSG Judgement. In: Engert A, Luca E, Ringe WG, Varottil U, Wetzer T (eds) Business law and the transition to a net zero economy. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 75–78
Eifert M (2022b) Die zeitliche Dimension des Freiheitsschutzes in der gebotenen Transformation zur Klimaneutralität: Der Klimabeschluss. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 77(3):537–545
Ekardt F (2014) Climate change, justice, and sustainability: the right to freedom, protection rights, and balancing. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 100(2):187–200
Ekardt F, Heß F (2021) Intertemporaler Freiheitsschutz, Existenzminimum und Gewaltenteilung nach dem BVerfG-Klima-Beschluss. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht ZUR 32(11):579–585
Fassbender K (2021) Der Klima-Beschluss des BVerfG – Inhalte, Folgen und offene Fragen. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 74(29):2085–2091
Fellenberg F (2022) Rechtsschutz als Instrument des Klimaschutzes – ein Zwischenstand. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 41(13):913–920
Franzius C (2021a) Die Rolle von Gerichten im Klimaschutzrecht. In: Rodi M (ed) Handbuch Klimaschutzrecht. C.H. Beck, München, pp 121–146
Franzius C (2021b) Die Figur eingriffsähnlicher Vorwirkungen: Zum Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 104(2):136–158
Ghaleigh NS (2021) Climate constitutionalism of the UK Supreme Court. J Environ Law 33(2):441–447
Ghaleigh NS, Setzer J, Welikala A (2022) The complexities of comparative climate constitutionalism. J Environ Law XX:1–10
Gärditz KF (2021) Die Erkenntisdimension im Klimaschutzbeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Recht und Politik 57(3):308–315
Graser A (2019) Vermeintliche Fesseln der Demokratie: Warum die Klimaklagen ein vielversprechender Weg sind. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 30(5):271–278
Grimm D (1991) Die Zukunft der Verfassung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M
Gross T (2009) Welche Klimaschutzpflichten ergeben sich aus Art. 20a GG? Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 20(7–8):364–368
Gross T (2019) Verfassungsrechtliche Klimaschutzverpflichtungen. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 17(3):353–363
Gross T (2020) Die Ableitung von Klimaschutzmaßnahmen aus grundrechtlichen Schutzpflichten. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 39(6):337–342
Gross T (2021) Climate change and duties to protect with regard to fundamental rights. In: Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) Climate change litigation. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 81–96
Härtel I (2020) Klimaschutzverfassungsrecht: Klima-Staatszielbestimmungen im Föderalismus. Natur und Recht 42(9):577–588
Hofmann E (2021) Der Klimaschutzbeschluss des BVerfG. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 40(21):1587–1590
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team. [Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds)] Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–151
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Matthews JBR, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou B (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S, Malley J (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jackson V (2015) Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. Yale Law J 124(8):3094–3196
Jaimes V (2015) Climate change and human rights litigation in Europe and the Americas. Seattle J Environ Law 5(1):165–198
Jaria-Manzano J, Borrás S (eds) (2019) Research handbook on global climate constitutionalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Kahl W (2022a) Der Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Zwischen tradierter Schutzpflichtendogmatik und innovativer Abwehrrechtssonderdogmatik. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 20(1):2–19
Kahl V (2022b) Rising before sinking. VerfBlog, 3 October 2022. https://verfassungsblog.de/rising-before-sinking/
Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) (2021) Climate change litigation, a handbook. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden
Kelleher O (2022) Systemic climate change litigation, standing rules and the Aarhus Convention: a purposive approach. J Environ Law 34(1):107–133
Kirchhoff G (2022) Intertemporale Freiheitssicherung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Kloepfer M, Wiedmann JL (2021) Die Entscheidung des BVerfG zum Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 136(20):1333–1340
Kotzé LJ, Du Plessis A (2022) Putting Africa on the stand: a bird’s eye view of climate change litigation on the continent. Environ Law Rev 50(3):615–663
Krämer-Hoppe R (2021) The climate protection order of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the North-South Divide. German Law J 22(8):1393–1408
Kühling J (2011) Fundamental rights. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 479–514
Ladeur KH (2022) Bundesverfassungsgericht und Klimaschutz: Kann das Verfassungsrecht Komplexität bewältigen? Recht und Politik 58(1):13–31
Lange F, Lippold M (2022) Höchstrichterliche Klimaentscheidungen und Demokratieprinzip – Eine rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung. JuristenZeitung 77(14):685–736
Lenz S (2022) Der Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – eine Dekonstruktion. Der Staat 61(1):73–111
Lewis B (2018) Environmental human rights and climate change: current status and future prospects. Springer Nature, Singapore
Lin J, Kysar AD (eds) (2022) Climate change litigation in the Asia Pacific. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Markell D, Ruhl JB (2012) An empirical assessment of climate change in the courts: a new jurisprudence or business as usual? Florida Law Rev 64(1):15–86
May J, Daly E (2019) Global climate constitutionalism and justice in the courts. In: Jaria-Manzano J, Borràs S (eds) Research handbook on global climate constitutionalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
McInerney-Lankford S, Darrow M, Rajamani L (2011) Human rights and climate change: a review of the international legal dimensions. The World Bank, Washington DC
Minnerop P (2022) The ‘Advance Interference-Like Effect’ of climate targets: fundamental rights, intergenerational equity and the German Federal Constitutional Court. J Environ Law 34(1):135–162
Mitkidis K, Valkanou TN (2020) Climate change litigation: trends, policy implications and the way forward. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):11–16
Möllers C, Weinberg N (2021) Die Klimaschutzentscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. JuristenZeitung 76(22):1069–1078
Okubo N (2013) Climate change litigation: a global tendency. In: Ruppel OC, Roschmann C, Ruppel-Schlichting K (eds) Climate change: international law and global governance. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 741–758
Pahl S, Sheppard S, Boomsma C, Groves C (2014) Perception of time in relation to climate change. WIREs Clim Change 5:375–388
Payandeh M (2021) The role of courts in climate protection and the separation of powers. In: Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) Climate change litigation. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 62–80
Peel J, Lin J (2019) Transnational climate litigation: the contribution of the global south. Am J Int Law 113(4):679–726
Peel J, Markey-Towler R (2021) Recipe for success? Lessons for strategic climate litigation from the Sharma, Neubauer, and Shell Cases. German Law J 22(8):1484–1498
Peel J, Osofsky HM (2015) Climate change litigation: regulatory pathways to cleaner energy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Peel J, Osofsky HM (2018) A rights turn in climate change litigation? Transnatl Environ Law 7(1):37–67
Peel J, Osofsky HM (2020) Climate change litigation. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 16:21–38
Peters B (2021) Zur Anwendbarkeit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention in Umwelt- und Klimaschutzfragen. Archiv des Völkerrechts 59(2):164–198
Polzin M (2021) Menschenrechtliche Klimaklagen: Kreative Justiz und überforderte Grundrechte. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 74(24):1089–1099
Posner EA (2007) Climate change and international human rights litigation: a critical appraisal. Univ Pa Law Rev 155(6):1925–1945
Preston BJ (2011) Climate change litigation (Part 1). Carbon Clim Law Rev 5(1):3–14 and (Part 2) Carbon Clim Law Rev 5(2):244–263
Preston BJ (2021) The influence of the Paris Agreement on climate litigation: causation, corporate governance and catalyst (Part I). J Environ Law 33(1):1–32 and (Part II) J Environ Law 33(2):227–225
Rajamani L, Guérin E (2017) Central concepts in the Paris Agreement and how they evolved. In: Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on climate change. Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 74–90
Reder M (2012) Climate change and human rights. In: Edenhofer O, Wallacher J, Lotze-Campen H, Knopf B, Müller J (eds) Climate change, justice and sustainability. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–67
Reich J (2020) Kommentar zu Verfahrensrecht – Umweltschutz: Bundesgericht, I. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung, 1C_37/2019, Urteil vom 5. Mai 2020. Schweizerisches Zentralblatt für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht 121(9):489–507
Rodi M, Kalis M (2022) Klimaklagen als Instrument des Klimaschutzes. Klima und Recht 1(1):10
Saiger AJ (2020) Domestic courts and the Paris Agreement’s climate goals: the need for a comparative approach. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):37–54
Saiger AJ (2022) Nationale Gerichte im Klimaschutzvölkerrecht: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum Pariser Übereinkommen. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Saurer J (2018) Strukturen gerichtlicher Kontrolle im Klimaschutzrecht – Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 15(12):679–686
Schlacke S (2021) Klimaschutzrecht – Ein Grundrecht auf intertemporale Freiheitssicherung. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 40(13):912–917
Schlacke S (2022) Climate justice and responsibility– rethinking climate protection and constitutional requirements. In: Scholz I, Busse L, Fues T (eds) Transboundary cooperation and global governance for inclusive sustainable development, contributions in honour of Dirk Messner’s 60th Birthday. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 119–124
Schlink B (2012) Proportionality (1). In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 718–737
Schulze-Fielitz W (2015) Kommentierung zu Art. 20a GG. In: Dreier H (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 3rd edn. Verlag Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Setzer J, Bangalore M (2017) Regulating climate change in the courts. In: Averchenkova A, Frankenhauser S, Nachmany M (eds) Trends in climate change legislation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 175–192
Setzer J, Benjamin L (2019) Climate litigation in the global south: constraints and innovations. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):77–101
Setzer J, Higham C (2021) Global trends in climate change litigation: 2021 snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. London School of Economics and Political Science, London
Setzer J, Vanhala L (2019) Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. WIREs Clim Change 10(3):1–19
Sinder R (2021) Anthropozänes Verfassungsrecht als Antwort auf den anthropogenen Klimawandel. JuristenZeitung 76(22):1078–1087
Sindico F, Mbengue M (eds) (2021) Comparative climate change litigation: beyond the usual suspects. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham
SRU German Advisory Council on the Environment (2020) Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets. Environmental Report 2020, Chapter 2. https://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/01_Environmental_Reports/2020_08_environmental_report_chapter_02.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022
Stark A (2021) Klimaschutz als intertemporaler Freiheitsschutz – Zum Klimaschutz-Beschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 104(3):237–269
Steinberg R (1998) Der ökologische Verfassungsstaat. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
Stoll PT (2016) The climate as a global common. In: Faber DA, Peeters M (eds) Climate change law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 131–141
Torre-Schaub M (2021) Dynamics, prospects, and trends in climate change litigation making climate change emergency a priority in France. German Law J 22(8):1445–1458
United Nation Environment Programme (2015) Climate change and human rights. https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/climate_change_and_human_rights.pdf. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022
Vanhala L (2013) The comparative politics of courts and climate change. Environ Polit 22(3):447–474
Voigt C (2021) The first climate judgement before the Norwegian Supreme Court: aligning law with politics. J Environ Law 33(3):697–710
Voigt C, Ferreira F (2016) ‘Dynamic Differentiation’: the principles of CBDR-RC, progression and highest possible ambition in the Paris Agreement. Transnatl Environ Law 5(2):285–303
Volkmann U (2022) Im Dienste der guten Sache. Anmerkungen aus Anlass des Klimabeschlusses des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Merkur 76(875):5–17
von Landenberg-Roberg M (2021) Die Operationalisierung der ‘Ambitionsspirale’ des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens. Archiv des Völkerrechts 59(2):119–163
von Landenberg-Roberg M (2022) Verantwortungsstrukturierung durch Emissionsbudgets, Zur Funktion eines zentralen Konstruktionselements des Klimaschutzrechts. Die Verwaltung 55(2):249–286
von Weschpfennig A (2022) Kommentierung zu § 3 KSG. In: Fellenberg F, Guckelberger A (eds) Klimaschutzrecht: KSG TEHG BEHG Kommentar. C.H. Beck, München, pp 72–93
Wagner G (2021) Klimaschutz durch Gerichte. Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift 74(31):2256–2263
Wahnschaffe T, Lücke F (2021) Die eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung auf Freiheitsrechte als Ansatz intertemporaler Freiheitssicherung. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 74(24):1099–1109
WBGU German Advisory Council on Global Change (2008) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach, Special Report. https://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu/publikationen/sondergutachten/sg2009/pdf/wbgu_sn2009_en.pdf. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022
Wegener B (2019) Urgenda – Weltrettung per Gerichtsbeschluss? Klimaklagen testen die Grenzen des Rechtschutzes. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 30(1):3–13
Wegener L (2020) Can the Paris Agreement help climate change litigation and vice versa? Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):17–36
Wegener B (2022) Menschenrecht auf Klimaschutz? Grenzen grundrechtsgestützter Klimaklagen gegen Staat und Private. Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift 75(7):425–431
Winkler H (2017) Mitigation (Art. 4). In: Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on climate change. Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–165
Winter G (2022a) The intergenerational effect of fundamental rights: a contribution of the German Federal Constitutional Court to climate protection. J Environ Law 34(1):209–221
Winter G (2022b) Not fit for purpose. Die Klagebefugnis vor dem Europäischen Gericht angesichts allgemeiner Gefahren. Europarecht 57(3):367–399
Zhao Y, Lyu S, Wang Z (2019) Prospects for climate change litigation in China. Transnatl Environ Law 8(2):349–377
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eifert, M., von Landenberg-Roberg, M. (2023). Climate Change Challenges Constitutional Law: Contextualising the German Federal Constitutional Courts Climate Jurisprudence Within Climate Constitutionalism. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_100
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_100
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28531-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28532-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)