All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

National Climate Litigation Case Reviews: Human Rights Justifications in Action

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F48546054%3A_____%2F25%3AN0000063" target="_blank" >RIV/48546054:_____/25:N0000063 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://hrjust-intersect-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Draft-working-paper_case-analysis_updated_February-2025-2.pdf" target="_blank" >https://hrjust-intersect-observatory.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Draft-working-paper_case-analysis_updated_February-2025-2.pdf</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    National Climate Litigation Case Reviews: Human Rights Justifications in Action

  • Original language description

    This report is part of the Horizon project HRJust (States’ Practice of Human Rights Justification: a study in civil society engagement and human rights through the lens of gender and intersectionality), GA no. 101094346. The report provides an insightful evaluation of the interactions between states and human rights justifications, illustrating how states use human rights justifications before domestic courts within the context of climate litigation, and how state accountability is ensured in these instances. Furthermore, the other types of justifications that states resort to have been identified, in situations where states do not utilize human rights justifications. This includes a range of categories such as public interest, competence-based, policy-based, development, social impact/equity, inadmissibility, procedural, lack of standing, and lack of causality justifications. By this way, the different arguments based on which states tend to justify their decisions and actions have also been observed. Thanks are due to the research team members from the Institute of International Relations Prague (CZ) and from the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern (CH) for their invaluable research support: Petra Ditrichová, Barbora Lukešová, and Riccarda Heepen.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    V<sub>souhrn</sub> - Summary research report

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    50501 - Law

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

    R - Projekt Ramcoveho programu EK

Others

  • Publication year

    2025

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Number of pages

    24

  • Place of publication

    neuveden

  • Publisher/client name

    European Commission

  • Version