This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In Japan, climate litigation ( / Kiko soshou ) has been used to challenge the legality of the construction and operation of the coal-fired power plants and promote coal phase-out. The Nagoya District Court will consider whether private actors can be held liable for their GHG emissions under Japanese tort law. Sendai Power Station ).
Formulated by the United Nations in 2015, they form the core of the 2030 Agenda and aim to enable people worldwide to live in dignity while respecting the earth’s ecological limit. Workers’ rights should be placed at the center, and laws as well as legal practices should also be evaluated from this point of view.
Japan , their case challenging the legality of a governmental approval that allows for the construction and operation of new coal-fired power plants. In its Nationally Determined Contribution , Japan has committed to reducing GHG emissions by 46% in 2030 from 2013 levels and achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
The court ordered Royal Dutch Shell (“RDS”) to reduce its emission by net 45% by 2030 in comparison to levels in 2019 – although without assertion of any unlawful conduct by the defendant (link to the judgement in English here ). Background. In the elaboration of the assessment (§4.),
And that has implications for tort law, contract law, and property law, because it is less clear in many ways how basic legal principles such as negligence, foreseeability, force majeure, and reasonableness will apply to particular problems. See this article by Jim Rossi and J.B. LSEW adopted a similar resolution in 2021.
This article analyzes the main legal aspects argued in the petition. Brazil has committed explicitly to zero illegal deforestation in Amazonia by 2030 in its Nationally Determined Contributions. In the first Brazilian climate tort case, the MPF calculated the climate damage owed due to years of deforestation in an unprecedented way.
This post examines the reform and highlights the important changes it introduces to the Italian legal system. First, it provides solid legal ground for public bodies in Italy to steer economic activities to pursue environmental (and climate) objectives. This reform bears thus a two-fold implication.
The paper also examines the effects of foreign adoption decrees, suggesting that recognition should cover the legal parent-child relationship and the termination of the pre-existing relationship, but not parental responsibility. The decision is the first to recognize a corporate duty to mitigate climate change under tort law.
Applicable law is defined based on the Dutch conflict of laws rules on torts, namely art. The same holds true for substantive law of evidence, including the specific rules on the burden of proof relating to a particular legal relationship. 1659 (2013), as well as Lubbe v. Procedural matters. To be continued – undoubtedly.
If damage caused by non-compliance with la Loi de Vigilance, any person with legitimate interest can seek reparation under tort law. In 2021, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce both its own carbon emissions and end-use emissions by 45% by 2030 in relation to the 2019 figures.
The appellate court also agreed with the court below that it was not appropriate to recognize a new tort of “intentional investment in abnormally dangerous activities” advocated by the plaintiffs on behalf of future generations. Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. North Dakota v. 16-1242 et al. Arizona Board of Regents , No.
The mining company argued that the district court should not have issued the injunction without hearing legal arguments and factual evidence on the appropriate remedy, and without weighing the mandatory factors for a mandatory injunction. The court also dismissed defamation and related state tort claims. 349-6-16WNCV (Vt.
Circuit to hold the cases in abeyance was to allow the federal district for the District of Columbia to resolve cases challenging NHTSA’s action that raise similar legal issues. The court found that the plaintiff, who did not allege any legally cognizable relationship with the community college, had failed to allege Article III standing.
The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded the exemptions after EPA moved for vacatur and voluntary remand, conceding that it did not analyze determinative legal questions regarding the refineries’ eligibility for the extensions. Hague District Court Ordered Shell to Reduce Its Emissions 45% by 2030. Renewable Fuels Association v.
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Neither European nor international law required the specific reduction targets requested by the plaintiffs, and the scientific report that they relied on, while scientifically meritorious, was not legally binding. The MPF brought a tort case against de Rezende for causing the deforestation of 2,488.56
The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because administrative appeals that raised the same legal issues were still pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In their main conclusions, the plaintiffs seek a Court injunction directing the government to reduce emissions 42 to 48% in 2025 and at least 55 to 65% in 2030.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content