UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
World Federation of Public Health Associations-Environmental Health Working Group.
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 15;17(6):e0268633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268633. eCollection 2022.
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.
强有力的科学证据表明，气候变化现在是一场公共卫生紧急事件。越来越多的针对政府和企业的气候诉讼利用国际人权、环境和气候法律和政策，要求对破坏气候和危害健康的行为负责。气候变化对健康的影响使诉讼成为追求正义和从战略上挑战法律制度的重要手段。然而，文献中几乎没有记录公共卫生在气候诉讼中的作用，以及在这种情况下公共卫生叙述的法律权重。因此，我们评估了法院在法律裁决中在多大程度上使用了对健康的损害，并试图提供实际建议，以解决将法律论点定位在以公共卫生为中心框架中的障碍。
我们审查了法律数据库，以确定 1990 年至 2020 年 9 月期间在任何国家或司法管辖区提起的所有公开报告和记录的气候诉讼案件。对于确定的 1641 个案例，我们量化了明确或隐含提出健康问题的案例的频率。
案件数量呈上升趋势，高收入国家尤为明显。由于大多数案件是在过去三年中提起的，因此仍有超过一半的案件有待裁决。这些案件主要基于气候和人权法，并由各种团体和个人提起，主要是针对政府。已裁决案件中约有一半对原告有利。基于此，我们选择了 65 个直接与公共卫生相关的案件。我们发现经济力量和健康风险定价发挥了关键作用，因为法院受到诉讼人的挑战，要求对健康影响的责任进行裁决。
虽然法院愿意接受公共卫生科学，但需要进行重大法律改革，以增强在气候诉讼案件的法律判决中利用公共卫生证据的能力。将公共卫生任务纳入新的生态中心法律范式将优化其促进人类福祉的潜力，这是国际法、人权和公共卫生的核心目标。可以加强现有的法律原则和做法，以增加气候法律行动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考虑、保护和促进公共卫生。
