National Climate Litigation Case Reviews: Human Rights Justifications in Action

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

National Climate Litigation Case Reviews: Human Rights Justifications in Action

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

National Climate Litigation Case Reviews: Human Rights Justifications in Action

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

V_souhrn - Souhrnná výzkumná zpráva

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

R - Projekt Ramcoveho programu EK

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Počet stran výsledku

24

Místo vydání

neuveden

Název nakladatele resp. objednatele

European Commission

Verze

—