The United States-the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter-is not party to the Kyoto Protocol,3 and many of the state parties struggle to achieve meaningful implementation.4 As reinforced by the resolution at the end of the G8 Summit in June 2007, massive uncertainty exists about the future of international regulation of climate change after the current Kyoto commitments expire in 2012.5 Climate change litigation is one of many civil society and governmental initiatives that have emerged in response to the lack of effective international environmental regulation. [...] Eric Posner, one of the principle advocates for an expansive approach to executive power that significantly curtails rights protections in the War on Terror context, recently published a commentary that makes a normative argument against bringing human rights claims based on climate change under the Alien Tort Claims Act.13 Similarly, at a 2007 Yale Journal of International Law symposium exploring whether a "new" New Haven School is emerging, Dean Harold Hongju Koh, one of the leading defenders of the importance of international legal obligations, led off his questions on the panel he moderated by engaging the significance of Massachusetts v EPA.14 As debates over the appropriate role of climate change litigation in regulatory governance become more intertwined with the ongoing fight over the future of international law, a systematic examination of how it fits into that discourse is critical.
The Geography of Climate Change Litigation Part II:
Pages to are hidden for
"The Geography of Climate Change Litigation Part II: Narratives of Massachusetts v EPA"Please download to view full document