气候变化诉讼的人权进路及其局限

近年来，以保障人权作为诉讼理由的气候变化诉讼案件开始出现在一些国家的司法机关，并取得了有限的成功。赞成者认为这种“人权转向”为通过司法推动气候变化应对提供了新的机遇，反对者则视其为一种人权法的滥用，可能导致对合法行为的惩罚。以人权为基础提出的气候变化诉讼应当作为一种策略性诉讼理解，亦即其目的并不在于获得某一具体争议的解决或损害的赔偿，而在于推动更大范围的社会与政策变革。为了实现这一目的，原告尽可能广泛地使用包括生命权、财产权、私生活安宁权、健康权、环境权等各种权利，并把权利的主体拓展到了未来世代和外国人，主张国家和大型碳排企业都应当为气候变化带来的人权减损负责。从理论上看，人权转向的优势在于能够通过法律续造创造新规范，而不仅仅是更新现有规范的解释。这种功能的实现在法律技术上不存在障碍，通过诉诸人权法各种原则，续造规则已经有了比较成熟的论证模式。但是这种理论上成立的功能在实践中如何发挥作用尚有一系列限制。司法机关毕竟不具备执行自己政策决定的功能，而且理论上成立的漏洞填补功能是否可以发挥仍取决于具体人权文化和气候应对模式的限制。

關鍵字

气候变化诉讼；人权进路；策略性诉讼；国家责任；工商业与人权

並列摘要

In recent years, litigants have begun to use human rights safeguards as a cause of action in climate change litigation in some jurisdictions and achieved limited success. Proponents see this ＂human rights turn＂ as new opportunities to advance climate change mitigation through the judicial process, while opponents criticize it as an abuse of human rights law that could lead to illegitimate sanctions on emitters. Human rights-based climate change litigation should be understood as strategic litigation, whose purpose is not to resolve a specific dispute or gain compensation for damages, but rather to promote broader social and policy change. To achieve this goal, plaintiffs use as wide a range of rights as possible, including the rights to life, property, peace in private life, health, environment and so on, and expand the subject of rights to future generations and foreign citizens, arguing that both the state and carbon majors should be held accountable for the diminished human rights caused by climate change. From a theoretical point of view, the strength of the human rights approach lies in empowering the judiciary to go beyond the paradigm of updating the interpretation of existing norms and create norms. There are no technical legal obstacles to the performance of this function, as filling lacune of law through recourse to various principles of human rights law has already become a relatively mature model of judicial reasoning. However, a series of factual obstacles still exist and may hinder the implementation of this theoretically well-established function. The judiciary, after all, cannot enforce its own policy decisions without the cooperation of other public authorities. Furthermore, the power of norm-making by appealing to human rights is highly culture-specific, which means it might not be supported in a culture of adjudication where right is not considered as trump.

並列關鍵字

climate change litigation ； human rights approach ； strategic litigation ； state responsibility ； business and human rights

主題瀏覽