Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Climate Change Challenges Constitutional Law: Contextualising the German Federal Constitutional Courts Climate Jurisprudence Within Climate Constitutionalism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 13))

Abstract

Climate change requires constitutional responses. The fundamental rights or environmental protection clauses contained in most constitutions provide a basis for this endeavour. The particular difficulties of determining the constitutionally required level of climate protection, climate protection’s dependence on scientific knowledge and international efforts, and the need to take the time dimension into account are specific challenges for any constitutional order. This article addresses these basic questions on constitutional law and presents the answers given by the Federal Constitutional Court in its landmark climate decision regarding the German Constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For constitutions rooted in the liberal-democratic tradition see Grimm (1991), pp. 116–119.

  2. 2.

    See Reder (2012), S. 66 f.; Ekardt (2014), pp. 192–198.

  3. 3.

    On the impact of the right to human dignity e.g. The Lahore High Court, Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, Judgement of 25.1.2018, W.P. No. 25501/2015, pp. 10 f.

  4. 4.

    Emphasising the necessity of safeguarding human rights in mitigation and adaptation activities UNEP (2015), p. 26. The Paris Agreement also expressly recognizes in its preamble, that “Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights”.

  5. 5.

    From the extensive literature see Posner (2007), p. 1925; Preston (2011), p. 3; Markell and Ruhl (2012), p. 15; Okubo (2013), p. 741; Peel and Osofsky (2015); Burger and Grundlach (2017); Setzer and Bangalore (2017), p. 175; Bouwer (2018), p. 347; Saurer (2018), p. 679; Graser (2019), p. 271; Burgers (2020), p. 55; Mitkidis and Valkanou (2020), p. 11; Setzer and Higham (2021); Peel and Markey-Towler (2021), p. 1484; Wagner (2021), p. 2256; Franzius (2021a), p. 121; Payandeh (2021), p. 64; Rodi and Kalis (2022), p. 5; de Vilchez Moragues (2022); Lange and Lippold (2022), p. 685; Fellenberg (2022), p. 913; Wegener (2022), p. 425; and further contributions in Kahl and Weller (2021). For a special focus on the post-Paris situation Wegener (2020), p. 17; Beauregard et al. (2021), p. 652; Preston (2021), p. 1; Saiger (2022). An instructive review of the research on courts and litigants in climate governance is provided by Setzer and Vanhala (2019), pp. 1–19; Peel and Osofsky (2020), pp. 22–26.

  6. 6.

    In particular, see articles in Alogna et al. (2021); Sindico and Mbengue (2021); Lin and Kysar (2022); and furthermore Vanhala (2013) p. 447; Peel and Lin (2019), p. 679; Setzer and Benjamin (2019), p. 77; Zhao et al. (2019), p. 349; Saiger (2020), pp. 51 ff.; Chaturvedi (2021), p. 1459; Torre-Schaub (2021), p. 1445; Voigt (2021), p. 697; Cameron and Weyman (2022), p. 195; Kotzé and Du Plessis (2022), p. 615.

  7. 7.

    For a broader notion of “constitutionalism” see the contributions in Jaria-Manzano and Borrás (2019) and Ghaleigh (2021), p. 445.

  8. 8.

    Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021—1 BvR 2656/18, paras. 1–270 (hereafter cited as: BVerfG, Climate Decision). The decision is officially published in BVerfGE 157, pp. 30–177. A translation in English is available at http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618en.html (last accessed 3 October 2022).

  9. 9.

    This decision has triggered a controversial debate in German literature. For rather critical views Calliess (2021b), p. 355; Fassbender (2021), p. 2085; Hofmann (2021), p. 1587; Kloepfer and Wiedmann (2021), p. 1333; Möllers and Weinberg (2021) p. 1069; Polzin (2021) p. 1089; Ladeur (2022), p. 13; Lenz (2022), p. 73; von Weschpfennig (2022), paras. 19–24; more ambivalent Buser (2021), p. 1409; Krämer-Hoppe (2021), p. 1393; Ekardt and Heß (2021), p. 579; Berkemann (2021), p. 701; Stark (2021), p. 237; Minnerop (2022), p. 135; Kirchhoff (2022), pp. 9–31; Volkmann (2022), p. 5; Winter (2022a), p. 209; differentiating Kahl (2022a), p. 2; Franzius (2021b), p. 136; for a decidedly positive evaluation Eifert (2021a), p. 1085; Schlacke (2021), p. 912; Sinder (2021), p. 1078; Wahnschaffe and Lücke (2021), p. 1099; Aust (2022), p. 150; von Landenberg-Roberg (2022), pp. 269–276. Defending the decision against points of criticism that were regularly voiced Eifert (2022b), pp. 542–545.

  10. 10.

    According to Ghaleigh et al. (2022), p. 7, these include: Algeria, Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Thailand, Tunisia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Zambia.

  11. 11.

    Art. 414 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.

  12. 12.

    For a more detailed account, see Ghaleigh et al. (2022), p. 9; May and Daly (2019), pp. 235 ff.

  13. 13.

    UNEP, Environmental Rule of Law, First Global Report, 2017, p. 2, 154–161; Lewis (2018), pp. 43–55; Gross (2021), p. 83.

  14. 14.

    For an instructive overview see Boyd (2015), pp. 171–186.

  15. 15.

    Jaimes (2015), pp. 170–181; Lewis (2018), pp. 157–165; Bickenbach (2020), p. 170; However, other fundamental rights can also be affected such as the right to private life, family and home or, especially in cases involving indigenous communities, rights concerning the preservation of culture (cf. UN HR Committee, Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019). Kahl (2022b) observes that in absence of independent rights to climate protection the normative allocation of climate change-related human rights impacts are arbitrary.

  16. 16.

    See McInerney-Lankford et al. (2011), pp. 18 f.

  17. 17.

    Birchler (2020), pp. 192–202; Braig and Ehlers-Hofherr (2020), p. 591.

  18. 18.

    Burger and Grundlach (2017), pp. 28 f.; Payandeh (2021), para. 18; Kelleher (2022), pp. 108–110.

  19. 19.

    However, individual standing provisions might also be narrowly interpretated or applied. For instance, access to the CJEU is particularly restricted by its jurisprudence on individual standing. For a critique, see Winter (2022b), pp. 367 ff. See also the decision of the Swiss Supreme Court, Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications, judgement of 20.5.2020, 1C_37/2019, where the court held that the plaintiffs’ asserted rights had not been affected with sufficient intensity. For a critical discussion see Reich (2020), pp. 501 ff.

  20. 20.

    Data collected from the reported national GHG inventories can be accessed via https://di.unfccc.int/time_series.

  21. 21.

    See e.g. Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 24.06.2015, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, paras. 4.79 and 4.90; Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 5.7.8.

  22. 22.

    See Supreme Court of United States, Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Judgement of 2.4.2007, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), p. 23.

  23. 23.

    Edenhofer et al. (2015), pp. 260 ff.; Stoll (2016), pp. 131–141.

  24. 24.

    IPCC (2014), p. 17.

  25. 25.

    IPCC (2021), p. 5.

  26. 26.

    IPCC (2021), pp. 630–635.

  27. 27.

    IPCC (2018), pp. 7–11.

  28. 28.

    Pahl et al. (2014), p. 376; Eifert (2022a), p. 75.

  29. 29.

    von Landenberg-Roberg (2022), p. 280.

  30. 30.

    Steinberg (1998), pp. 335 ff.; Franzius (2021a), pp. 140–142.

  31. 31.

    See also High Court of New Zealand, Thomson v. The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Judgment of 2.11.2017, CIV 2015-485-919 [2017] NZHC 733, paras. 133 f.; Cremer (2019), pp. 278 f.; Franzius (2021a), pp. 133 f.

  32. 32.

    Wegener (2019), p. 15.

  33. 33.

    See Franzius (2021a), pp. 133 f.; Payandeh (2021), pp. 76–80.

  34. 34.

    See also Gross (2019), p. 362.

  35. 35.

    According to Article 20a of the Basic Law, the state shall protect “mindful also of its responsibility towards future generations” the “natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and, in accordance with law and justice, by executive and judicial action, all within the framework of the constitutional order”. For an analysis of the provision, see Durner (2021), paras. 61–71; Schulze-Fielitz (2015), paras. 23–54; with special regard to climate protection Gross (2009), pp. 366 f.; Härtel (2020), pp. 578 f.

  36. 36.

    Arguing for the introduction of a procedural fundamental right to environmental protection, Calliess (2021a), pp. 323 ff.

  37. 37.

    In Germany the global climate was recognised early on by constitutional jurisprudence as an object of protection under Article 20a of the Basic Law without any special reasoning. See BVerfGE 118, 79 (110 f.); 137, 350 (368 f. paras. 47, 378 para. 73); 155, 238 (278 para. 100).

  38. 38.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 198.

  39. 39.

    IPCC (2021), pp. 27–31.

  40. 40.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 198.

  41. 41.

    Hinting in this direction High Court of New Zealand, Thomson v. The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Judgment of 2.11.2017, CIV 2015-485-919 [2017] NZHC 733, para. 133.

  42. 42.

    Kahl (2022a), p. 16; Schlacke (2021), p. 915.

  43. 43.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 205; Britz (2022), pp. 827 f.

  44. 44.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 211.

  45. 45.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.

  46. 46.

    For a positive evaluation in this regard, see also Gärditz (2021), pp. 314 f.

  47. 47.

    § 1 Federal Climate Change Act reads: “The purpose of this Act is to provide protection from the effects of worldwide climate change by ensuring achievement of the national climate targets and compliance with the European targets. The ecological, social and economic impacts shall be taken into consideration. The basis of the Act is the obligation according to the Paris Agreement, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C and, if possible, to 1.5°C, above the pre-industrial level so as to minimise the effects of worldwide climate change, as well as the commitment made by the Federal Republic of Germany at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on 23 September 2019 to pursue the long-term goal of greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050.”

  48. 48.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 210.

  49. 49.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 211.

  50. 50.

    IPCC (2018), pp. 5 f.

  51. 51.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 211.

  52. 52.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 213.

  53. 53.

    See also Schlacke (2022), p. 123.

  54. 54.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 201.

  55. 55.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 201.

  56. 56.

    Art. 4 (2) Paris Agreement. See further Bodle and Oberthür (2017), pp. 93 f.; Winkler (2017), pp. 146 f.

  57. 57.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 203.

  58. 58.

    See also Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 5.7.7.

  59. 59.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 201.

  60. 60.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.

  61. 61.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.

  62. 62.

    See, with further references, WBGU (2008), pp. 21–40; IPCC (2018), pp. 104–107; SRU (2020), pp. 5–58.

  63. 63.

    References to the budget approach have also been made in, among others, Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 4.6, 7.4.3 and implicitly in The Supreme Court of Ireland, Friends of the Irish Environment v The Government of Ireland, Judgement of 31.7.2020, Appeal No 205/19, no. 4.6.

  64. 64.

    Examples are Germany and France. Such a use, however, enables courts to evaluate climate protection measures against the legislative budget targets (cf. Conseil dÉtat, Decision of 1.7.2021, 427301 (Grand-Synthe II)).

  65. 65.

    In the absence of alternative control variables, it is highly reasonable for the legislature to also take this approach, but it is not obliged by the constitution to do so (see BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 218). The budget approach is therefore not constitutionalised, but only used in the context of necessary scientific controls. As long as there is no alternative, however, this boundary is blurred in practical applications. For a constitutionalisation of the budget approach argues Abel (2022), p. 336.

  66. 66.

    Clearly stated in BVerfG (Chamber), Decision of 18.1.2022, 1 BvR 1565/21, para. 5; Britz (2022), p. 832.

  67. 67.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.

  68. 68.

    SRU (2020), pp. 5–58.

  69. 69.

    SRU (2020), pp. 15–20.

  70. 70.

    Voigt and Ferreira (2016), pp. 288–303; Rajamani and Guérin (2017), pp. 81–88.

  71. 71.

    For a more detailed analysis, see von Landenberg-Roberg (2021), pp. 124–139.

  72. 72.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 230 f.

  73. 73.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 212.

  74. 74.

    See only Brown (2008), pp. 195 ff.; Bodansky (2010), pp. 519–522; McInerney-Lankford et al. (2011), pp. 11 ff.; Jaimes (2015), pp. 165 ff.; Peel and Osofsky (2018), pp. 42 ff.; Gross (2021), pp. 84 ff.; for a detailed analysis with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, Peters (2021), pp. 177 ff.

  75. 75.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 163.

  76. 76.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 157; Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 24.6.2015, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, no. 4.75.; Hoge Raad of the Netherlands, Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 20.12.2019, 19/00135, no. 7.5.2.

  77. 77.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 150.

  78. 78.

    See also UN HR Committee, Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019, para. 8.3 with respect to Art. 6 ICCPR.

  79. 79.

    Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 24.6.2015, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, no. 4.79; Gross (2020), pp. 340 f.

  80. 80.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 149.

  81. 81.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 152.

  82. 82.

    BVerfGE 96, 56 (64); BVerfG 121, 317 (356); BVerfG 142, 313 (337 para. 70).

  83. 83.

    BVerfGE 142, 313 (337 f. para. 70); BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 152.

  84. 84.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 155 f.

  85. 85.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 157.

  86. 86.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 165.

  87. 87.

    See e.g. Bowen and Fankhauser (2017), pp. 123–135.

  88. 88.

    Bumke and Voßkuhle (2019), paras. 123–160.

  89. 89.

    Jackson (2015), p. 3095; Schlink (2012), p. 718; Barak (2012), p. 738; Kühling (2011), pp. 501–511.

  90. 90.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 120, 192.

  91. 91.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 192–194.

  92. 92.

    IPCC (2022), pp. 21–43.

  93. 93.

    Britz (2022), p. 832.

  94. 94.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 187.

  95. 95.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 116–123, 183.

  96. 96.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 184–189.

  97. 97.

    BVerfGE 6, 32 (41). For further discussion see Eifert (2021b), paras. 84 ff.

  98. 98.

    The German Federal Constitutional Court has also included a time dimension in the environmental protection clause. The obligation to sustainably protect the environment prevents its use in such a way that future generations can only preserve it at the price of radical abstinence of their own (BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 193).

  99. 99.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 192 ff., 243.

  100. 100.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, para. 246.

  101. 101.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 243 ff.

  102. 102.

    BVerfG, Climate Decision, paras. 252 ff.

  103. 103.

    Bumke and Voßkuhle (2019), paras. 1413–1440.

References

  • Abel P (2022) Parlamentarische CO2-Budgethoheit und -Budgetverantwortung. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 32(6):333–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Alogna I, Bakker C, Gauci JP (eds) (2021) Climate change litigation: global perspectives. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust H (2022) Case note: Climate Protection Act Case, Federal Constitutional Court, Order of the First Senate, March 24, 2021. Am J Int Law 116(1):150–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak A (2012) Proportionality (2). In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 738–755

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauregard C, Carlson D, Robinson S, Cobb C, Patton M (2021) Climate justice and rights-based litigation in a post-Paris word. Clim Policy 21(5):652–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkemann J (2021) “Freiheitschancen über die Generationen” (Art. 20a GG) – Intertemporaler Klimaschutz im Paradigmenwechsel. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 74(16):701–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickenbach C (2020) Subjektiv-öffentliches Recht auf Klimaschutz? Die Erderwärmung vor den Gerichten. JuristenZeitung 75(4):168–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Birchler A (2020) Climate change, resulting natural disasters and the legal responsibility of states: an international law perspective. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (2010) Introduction: climate change and human rights: unpacking the issues. Georgia J Int Comp Law 38(3):511–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodle R, Oberthür S (2017) Legal form of the Paris Agreement and nature of its obligations. In: Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on climate change. Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwer K (2018) The unsexy future of climate change litigation. J Environ Law 30(3):483–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen A, Fankhauser S (2017) Good practice in low-carbon policy. In: Averchenkova A, Fankhauser S, Nachmany M (eds) Trends in climate change legislation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd D (2015) Constitutions, human rights, and the environment: national approaches. In: Grear A, Kotzé LJ (eds) Research handbook on human rights and the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 170–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Braig KF, Ehlers-Hofherr A (2020) Diese andere Potenzielle Katastrophe: Wie kann der EGMR dazu beitragen, die Klimakrise einzudämmen? Natur und Recht 42(9):589–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Britz G (2022) Klimaschutz in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 41(12):825–834

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown D (2008) The case for understanding inadequate climate change strategies as human rights violations. In: Westra I, Bosselmann K (eds) Reconciling human existence with ecological integrity. Routledge, London, pp 195–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Bumke C, Voßkuhle A (2019) German constitutional law: introduction, cases, and principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger M, Grundlach J (2017) The status of climate change litigation – a global review. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=sabin_climate_change. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022

  • Burgers L (2020) Should judges make climate change law? Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Buser A (2021) Of carbon budgets, factual uncertainties, and intergenerational equity – the German Constitutional Court’s climate decision. German Law J 22(8):1409–1422

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (2021a) Klimaschutz und Grundrechtsschutz, Brauchen wir ein Grundrecht auf Umweltschutz? Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 32(6):323–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Calliess C (2021b) Das “Klimaurteil” des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: “Versubjektivierung” des Art. 20a GG? Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 32(6):323–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron C, Weyman R (2022) Recent youth-led and rights-based climate change litigation in Canada: reconciling justiciability, charter claims and procedural choices. J Environ Law 34(1):195–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaturvedi E (2021) Climate change litigation: Indian perspective. German Law J 22(8):1459–1470

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer W (2019) Verfassungskräftiger Klimaschutz nach Maßgabe völkerrechtlich verbindlicher Verpflichtungen und Ziele. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 30(5):278–283

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vilchez Moragues P (2022) Climate in court: defining state obligations on global warming through domestic climate litigation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Durner W (2021) § 26 Umweltverfassungsrecht. In: Herdegen M, Masing J, Poscher R, Gärditz KF (eds) Handbuch des Verfassungsrechts, Darstellung in transnationaler Perspektive. C. H. Beck, München, pp 1623–1666

    Google Scholar 

  • Edenhofer O, Flachsland C, Jakob M, Lessmann K (2015) The atmosphere as a global commons. In: Bernard L, Semmler W (eds) The Oxford handbook of the macroeconomics of global warming. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 260–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2021a) Verfassungsauftrag zum freiheitsschonenden Klimaschutz: Der Klimaschutz-Beschluss des BVerfG. Juristische Ausbildung 43(9):1085–1098

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2021b) § 18 Persönliche Freiheit. In: Herdegen M, Masing J, Poscher R, Gärditz KF (eds) Handbuch des Verfassungsrechts, Darstellung in transnationaler Perspektive. Verlag C. H. Beck, München, pp 1163–1228

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2022a) The German Constitutional Court’s KSG Judgement. In: Engert A, Luca E, Ringe WG, Varottil U, Wetzer T (eds) Business law and the transition to a net zero economy. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 75–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Eifert M (2022b) Die zeitliche Dimension des Freiheitsschutzes in der gebotenen Transformation zur Klimaneutralität: Der Klimabeschluss. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 77(3):537–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekardt F (2014) Climate change, justice, and sustainability: the right to freedom, protection rights, and balancing. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 100(2):187–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekardt F, Heß F (2021) Intertemporaler Freiheitsschutz, Existenzminimum und Gewaltenteilung nach dem BVerfG-Klima-Beschluss. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht ZUR 32(11):579–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender K (2021) Der Klima-Beschluss des BVerfG – Inhalte, Folgen und offene Fragen. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 74(29):2085–2091

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellenberg F (2022) Rechtsschutz als Instrument des Klimaschutzes – ein Zwischenstand. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 41(13):913–920

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C (2021a) Die Rolle von Gerichten im Klimaschutzrecht. In: Rodi M (ed) Handbuch Klimaschutzrecht. C.H. Beck, München, pp 121–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzius C (2021b) Die Figur eingriffsähnlicher Vorwirkungen: Zum Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 104(2):136–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaleigh NS (2021) Climate constitutionalism of the UK Supreme Court. J Environ Law 33(2):441–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaleigh NS, Setzer J, Welikala A (2022) The complexities of comparative climate constitutionalism. J Environ Law XX:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärditz KF (2021) Die Erkenntisdimension im Klimaschutzbeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Recht und Politik 57(3):308–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Graser A (2019) Vermeintliche Fesseln der Demokratie: Warum die Klimaklagen ein vielversprechender Weg sind. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 30(5):271–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (1991) Die Zukunft der Verfassung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross T (2009) Welche Klimaschutzpflichten ergeben sich aus Art. 20a GG? Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 20(7–8):364–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross T (2019) Verfassungsrechtliche Klimaschutzverpflichtungen. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 17(3):353–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross T (2020) Die Ableitung von Klimaschutzmaßnahmen aus grundrechtlichen Schutzpflichten. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 39(6):337–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross T (2021) Climate change and duties to protect with regard to fundamental rights. In: Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) Climate change litigation. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 81–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Härtel I (2020) Klimaschutzverfassungsrecht: Klima-Staatszielbestimmungen im Föderalismus. Natur und Recht 42(9):577–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann E (2021) Der Klimaschutzbeschluss des BVerfG. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 40(21):1587–1590

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team. [Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds)] Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Matthews JBR, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou B (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, Pathak M, Some S, Vyas P, Fradera R, Belkacemi M, Hasija A, Lisboa G, Luz S, Malley J (eds)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson V (2015) Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. Yale Law J 124(8):3094–3196

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaimes V (2015) Climate change and human rights litigation in Europe and the Americas. Seattle J Environ Law 5(1):165–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaria-Manzano J, Borrás S (eds) (2019) Research handbook on global climate constitutionalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W (2022a) Der Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Zwischen tradierter Schutzpflichtendogmatik und innovativer Abwehrrechtssonderdogmatik. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 20(1):2–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl V (2022b) Rising before sinking. VerfBlog, 3 October 2022. https://verfassungsblog.de/rising-before-sinking/

  • Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) (2021) Climate change litigation, a handbook. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher O (2022) Systemic climate change litigation, standing rules and the Aarhus Convention: a purposive approach. J Environ Law 34(1):107–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff G (2022) Intertemporale Freiheitssicherung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloepfer M, Wiedmann JL (2021) Die Entscheidung des BVerfG zum Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 136(20):1333–1340

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzé LJ, Du Plessis A (2022) Putting Africa on the stand: a bird’s eye view of climate change litigation on the continent. Environ Law Rev 50(3):615–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer-Hoppe R (2021) The climate protection order of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the North-South Divide. German Law J 22(8):1393–1408

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühling J (2011) Fundamental rights. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European constitutional law, 2nd edn. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 479–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur KH (2022) Bundesverfassungsgericht und Klimaschutz: Kann das Verfassungsrecht Komplexität bewältigen? Recht und Politik 58(1):13–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange F, Lippold M (2022) Höchstrichterliche Klimaentscheidungen und Demokratieprinzip – Eine rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung. JuristenZeitung 77(14):685–736

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz S (2022) Der Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – eine Dekonstruktion. Der Staat 61(1):73–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis B (2018) Environmental human rights and climate change: current status and future prospects. Springer Nature, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin J, Kysar AD (eds) (2022) Climate change litigation in the Asia Pacific. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Markell D, Ruhl JB (2012) An empirical assessment of climate change in the courts: a new jurisprudence or business as usual? Florida Law Rev 64(1):15–86

    Google Scholar 

  • May J, Daly E (2019) Global climate constitutionalism and justice in the courts. In: Jaria-Manzano J, Borràs S (eds) Research handbook on global climate constitutionalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney-Lankford S, Darrow M, Rajamani L (2011) Human rights and climate change: a review of the international legal dimensions. The World Bank, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnerop P (2022) The ‘Advance Interference-Like Effect’ of climate targets: fundamental rights, intergenerational equity and the German Federal Constitutional Court. J Environ Law 34(1):135–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitkidis K, Valkanou TN (2020) Climate change litigation: trends, policy implications and the way forward. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):11–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers C, Weinberg N (2021) Die Klimaschutzentscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. JuristenZeitung 76(22):1069–1078

    Google Scholar 

  • Okubo N (2013) Climate change litigation: a global tendency. In: Ruppel OC, Roschmann C, Ruppel-Schlichting K (eds) Climate change: international law and global governance. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 741–758

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl S, Sheppard S, Boomsma C, Groves C (2014) Perception of time in relation to climate change. WIREs Clim Change 5:375–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Payandeh M (2021) The role of courts in climate protection and the separation of powers. In: Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) Climate change litigation. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 62–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel J, Lin J (2019) Transnational climate litigation: the contribution of the global south. Am J Int Law 113(4):679–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel J, Markey-Towler R (2021) Recipe for success? Lessons for strategic climate litigation from the Sharma, Neubauer, and Shell Cases. German Law J 22(8):1484–1498

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel J, Osofsky HM (2015) Climate change litigation: regulatory pathways to cleaner energy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel J, Osofsky HM (2018) A rights turn in climate change litigation? Transnatl Environ Law 7(1):37–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel J, Osofsky HM (2020) Climate change litigation. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 16:21–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters B (2021) Zur Anwendbarkeit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention in Umwelt- und Klimaschutzfragen. Archiv des Völkerrechts 59(2):164–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Polzin M (2021) Menschenrechtliche Klimaklagen: Kreative Justiz und überforderte Grundrechte. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 74(24):1089–1099

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner EA (2007) Climate change and international human rights litigation: a critical appraisal. Univ Pa Law Rev 155(6):1925–1945

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston BJ (2011) Climate change litigation (Part 1). Carbon Clim Law Rev 5(1):3–14 and (Part 2) Carbon Clim Law Rev 5(2):244–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston BJ (2021) The influence of the Paris Agreement on climate litigation: causation, corporate governance and catalyst (Part I). J Environ Law 33(1):1–32 and (Part II) J Environ Law 33(2):227–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajamani L, Guérin E (2017) Central concepts in the Paris Agreement and how they evolved. In: Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on climate change. Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 74–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Reder M (2012) Climate change and human rights. In: Edenhofer O, Wallacher J, Lotze-Campen H, Knopf B, Müller J (eds) Climate change, justice and sustainability. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich J (2020) Kommentar zu Verfahrensrecht – Umweltschutz: Bundesgericht, I. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung, 1C_37/2019, Urteil vom 5. Mai 2020. Schweizerisches Zentralblatt für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht 121(9):489–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodi M, Kalis M (2022) Klimaklagen als Instrument des Klimaschutzes. Klima und Recht 1(1):10

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiger AJ (2020) Domestic courts and the Paris Agreement’s climate goals: the need for a comparative approach. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):37–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiger AJ (2022) Nationale Gerichte im Klimaschutzvölkerrecht: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum Pariser Übereinkommen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Saurer J (2018) Strukturen gerichtlicher Kontrolle im Klimaschutzrecht – Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 15(12):679–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlacke S (2021) Klimaschutzrecht – Ein Grundrecht auf intertemporale Freiheitssicherung. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 40(13):912–917

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlacke S (2022) Climate justice and responsibility– rethinking climate protection and constitutional requirements. In: Scholz I, Busse L, Fues T (eds) Transboundary cooperation and global governance for inclusive sustainable development, contributions in honour of Dirk Messner’s 60th Birthday. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 119–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlink B (2012) Proportionality (1). In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 718–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze-Fielitz W (2015) Kommentierung zu Art. 20a GG. In: Dreier H (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 3rd edn. Verlag Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Setzer J, Bangalore M (2017) Regulating climate change in the courts. In: Averchenkova A, Frankenhauser S, Nachmany M (eds) Trends in climate change legislation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 175–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Setzer J, Benjamin L (2019) Climate litigation in the global south: constraints and innovations. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):77–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Setzer J, Higham C (2021) Global trends in climate change litigation: 2021 snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Setzer J, Vanhala L (2019) Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. WIREs Clim Change 10(3):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinder R (2021) Anthropozänes Verfassungsrecht als Antwort auf den anthropogenen Klimawandel. JuristenZeitung 76(22):1078–1087

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindico F, Mbengue M (eds) (2021) Comparative climate change litigation: beyond the usual suspects. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • SRU German Advisory Council on the Environment (2020) Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets. Environmental Report 2020, Chapter 2. https://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/01_Environmental_Reports/2020_08_environmental_report_chapter_02.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022

  • Stark A (2021) Klimaschutz als intertemporaler Freiheitsschutz – Zum Klimaschutz-Beschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 104(3):237–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg R (1998) Der ökologische Verfassungsstaat. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll PT (2016) The climate as a global common. In: Faber DA, Peeters M (eds) Climate change law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 131–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Torre-Schaub M (2021) Dynamics, prospects, and trends in climate change litigation making climate change emergency a priority in France. German Law J 22(8):1445–1458

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nation Environment Programme (2015) Climate change and human rights. https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/climate_change_and_human_rights.pdf. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022

  • Vanhala L (2013) The comparative politics of courts and climate change. Environ Polit 22(3):447–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt C (2021) The first climate judgement before the Norwegian Supreme Court: aligning law with politics. J Environ Law 33(3):697–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt C, Ferreira F (2016) ‘Dynamic Differentiation’: the principles of CBDR-RC, progression and highest possible ambition in the Paris Agreement. Transnatl Environ Law 5(2):285–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkmann U (2022) Im Dienste der guten Sache. Anmerkungen aus Anlass des Klimabeschlusses des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Merkur 76(875):5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • von Landenberg-Roberg M (2021) Die Operationalisierung der ‘Ambitionsspirale’ des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens. Archiv des Völkerrechts 59(2):119–163

    Google Scholar 

  • von Landenberg-Roberg M (2022) Verantwortungsstrukturierung durch Emissionsbudgets, Zur Funktion eines zentralen Konstruktionselements des Klimaschutzrechts. Die Verwaltung 55(2):249–286

    Google Scholar 

  • von Weschpfennig A (2022) Kommentierung zu § 3 KSG. In: Fellenberg F, Guckelberger A (eds) Klimaschutzrecht: KSG TEHG BEHG Kommentar. C.H. Beck, München, pp 72–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2021) Klimaschutz durch Gerichte. Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift 74(31):2256–2263

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahnschaffe T, Lücke F (2021) Die eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung auf Freiheitsrechte als Ansatz intertemporaler Freiheitssicherung. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 74(24):1099–1109

    Google Scholar 

  • WBGU German Advisory Council on Global Change (2008) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach, Special Report. https://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu/publikationen/sondergutachten/sg2009/pdf/wbgu_sn2009_en.pdf. Last accessed 3 Oct 2022

  • Wegener B (2019) Urgenda – Weltrettung per Gerichtsbeschluss? Klimaklagen testen die Grenzen des Rechtschutzes. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 30(1):3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener L (2020) Can the Paris Agreement help climate change litigation and vice versa? Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):17–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener B (2022) Menschenrecht auf Klimaschutz? Grenzen grundrechtsgestützter Klimaklagen gegen Staat und Private. Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift 75(7):425–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler H (2017) Mitigation (Art. 4). In: Klein D, Carazo MP, Doelle M, Bulmer J, Higham A (eds) The Paris Agreement on climate change. Analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (2022a) The intergenerational effect of fundamental rights: a contribution of the German Federal Constitutional Court to climate protection. J Environ Law 34(1):209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (2022b) Not fit for purpose. Die Klagebefugnis vor dem Europäischen Gericht angesichts allgemeiner Gefahren. Europarecht 57(3):367–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Y, Lyu S, Wang Z (2019) Prospects for climate change litigation in China. Transnatl Environ Law 8(2):349–377

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Faculty of Law, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Eifert & Michael von Landenberg-Roberg

Authors
  1. Martin Eifert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael von Landenberg-Roberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Eifert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jelena Bäumler

  2. Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

    Christina Binder

  3. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  4. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  5. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Giesela Rühl

  6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  7. Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  8. Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Eifert, M., von Landenberg-Roberg, M. (2023). Climate Change Challenges Constitutional Law: Contextualising the German Federal Constitutional Courts Climate Jurisprudence Within Climate Constitutionalism. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_100

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_100

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28531-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28532-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation