Book contents
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Climate Ethics, Affirmative Action, and Unjust Enrichment
- 2 Historical Responsibility and Climate Change
- 3 Historical Emissions
- 4 How Legal Systems Deal with Issues of Responsibility for Past Harmful Behavior
- 5 Asking Beneficiaries to Pay for Past Pollution
- 6 Benefiting from Unjust Acts and Benefiting from Injustice
- 7 A Luck-Based Moral Defense of Grandfathering
- 8 In Defense of Emissions Egalitarianism?
- 9 In the Name of Political Possibility
- 10 Right to Development and Historical Emissions
- Index
- References
4 - How Legal Systems Deal with Issues of Responsibility for Past Harmful Behavior
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2017
Book contents
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Climate Ethics, Affirmative Action, and Unjust Enrichment
- 2 Historical Responsibility and Climate Change
- 3 Historical Emissions
- 4 How Legal Systems Deal with Issues of Responsibility for Past Harmful Behavior
- 5 Asking Beneficiaries to Pay for Past Pollution
- 6 Benefiting from Unjust Acts and Benefiting from Injustice
- 7 A Luck-Based Moral Defense of Grandfathering
- 8 In Defense of Emissions Egalitarianism?
- 9 In the Name of Political Possibility
- 10 Right to Development and Historical Emissions
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter will consider how the legal system approaches issues of historical responsibility in other contexts involving long delays between actions and the resulting harm. Tort law and environmental laws have grappled with problems of liability based on past actions. Examination of these legal regimes can shed light on the issue of whether greenhouse gas emitters should be considered responsible only after a cut-off date when climate change was better understood. These regimes also elucidate other issues relating to historic responsibility, such as allocation of responsibility between emitters and burden of proof. The problem of climate change is unique in some ways, and the legal system is not always the best gauge of ethical judgments. Nevertheless, understanding how society has handled other cases of historical responsibility can illuminate the problem of climate justice.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Climate Justice and Historical Emissions , pp. 80 - 106Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Abraham, K. (2012). The Forms and Functions of Tort Law, 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Adler, M. (2007). Commentaries: Corrective Justice and Liability for Global Warming. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, 1859–67.Google Scholar
American Law Institute (1997). Restatement of the Law of Torts: Products Liability, 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
American Law Institute (2010). A Concise Restatement of Torts, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers.Google Scholar
Bergkamp, L., and Goldsmith, B. (2013). The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary. Croydon, UK: CPI Group.Google Scholar
Bergkamp, L., and van Bergeijk, A. (2013a). Scope of the ELD Regime. In The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, ed. Bergkamp, L. and Goldsmith, B.. Croydon, UK: CPI Group, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar
Bergkamp, L., and van Bergeijk, A. (2013b). Exceptions and Defences. In The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, ed. Bergkamp, L. and Goldsmith, B.. Croydon, UK: CPI Group, pp. 80–94.Google Scholar
Brans, E. (2013). Fundamentals of Liability for Environmental Harm under the ELD. In The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, ed. Bergkamp, L. and Goldsmith, B.. Croydon, UK: CPI Group, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
Bratspies, R., and Miller, R. (2006). Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairgrieve, D. (2005). Product Liability in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farber, D. (2008). The Case for Climate Compensation: Justice for Climate Change Victims in a Complex World. Utah Law Review, 2008(2), 377–413.Google Scholar
Faure, M., and Nollkaemper, A. (2007). International Liability as an Instrument to Prevent and Compensate for Climate Change. Stanford Environmental Law Review 23A, 123–79.Google Scholar
Faure, M., and Peeters, M. (2011). Climate Change Liability. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, M., and De Smedt, K. (2013). The ELD’s Effects in Practice. In The EU Environmental Liability Directive: A Commentary, ed. Bergkamp, L. and Goldsmith, B.. Croydon, UK: CPI Group, pp. 219–234.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S., and Lord, R. (2012). England. In Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice, ed. Lord, R. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 445–88.Google Scholar
Hunter, D., and Salzman, J. (2007). Negligence in the Air: The Duty of Care in Climate Change Litigation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, 1741–94.Google Scholar
Koch, H. J., Luhrs, M., and Verheyen, R. (2012). Germany. In Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice, ed. Lord, R. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 376–416.Google Scholar
Koivurova, T. (2007). International Legal Avenues to Address the Plight of Victims of Climate Change: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 22, 267–99.Google Scholar
Lenze, S. (2005). German Product Liability Law: Between European Directives, American Restatements, and Common Sense. In Product Liability in Comparative Perspective, ed. Fairgrieve, D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 100–25.Google Scholar
Lord, R. et al. (2012). Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, S. (2006). Of Paradoxes, Precedents, and Progeny: The Trail Smelter Arbitration 65 Years Later. In Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration, ed. Bratspies, R. and Miller, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mildred, M. (2005). The Development Risk Defense. In Product Liability in Comparative Perspective, ed. Fairgrieve, D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nottage, L. (2004). Product Safety and Liability in Japan from Minimata to Mad Cows. London: Routledge Curzon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, V. (1988). A General Theory of the Inner Structure of Strict Liability: Common Law, Civil Law, and Comparative Law. Tulane Law Review, 62, 1303–53.Google Scholar
Pasa, B. and Benacchio, G. (2005). The Harmonization of Civil and Commercial Law in Europe. New York: CEU Press.Google Scholar
Robb, G. (1982). A Practical Approach to Use of State of the Art Evidence in Strict Products Liability Cases. Northwestern University Law Review, 77, 1–33.Google Scholar
Robinson v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., 500 F.3d 691 (8th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Sachs, N. (2008). Beyond the Liability Wall: Strengthening Tort Remedies in International Environmental Law. UCLA Law Review, 55, 837–904.Google Scholar
Salzman, J. and Thompson, B. H. (2014). Environmental Law and Policy: Concepts and Insights, 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Sexton v. Bell Helmets, Inc., 926 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
Stapleton, J. (2002). Bugs in Anglo-American Products Liability. South Carolina Law Review, 53, 1225–61.Google Scholar
Sternhagen v. Dow Company, 935 P.2d 1139 (Mont. 1997).Google Scholar
Tabatabai, M. (2012). Comparing U.S. and EU Hazardous Waste Liability Frameworks: How the EU Liability Directive Competes with CERCLA. Houston Journal of International Law, 34, 653–84.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. (2005). Harmonisation or Divergence? A Comparison of French and English Product Liability Rule. In Product Liability in Comparative Perspective, ed. Fairgrieve, D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–43.Google Scholar
Tinker, C. (1992). Strict Liability of States for Environmental Harm: An Emerging Principle of International Law. Transnational Law, 3, 155–66.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, E. (1988). Tort Liability in France for the Act of Things: A Study of Judicial Lawmaking. Louisiana Law Review, 48, 1299–1360.Google Scholar
United States v. Dico, Inc., 266 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1988).Google Scholar
United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
Wagner, G. (2008). Comparative Tort Law. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, ed. Reiman, M. and Zimmerman, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1003–42.Google Scholar
Weisbach, D. (2012). Negligence, Strict Liability, and Responsibility for Climate Change. Iowa Law Review, 97, 521–65.Google Scholar
Weiss, E. B. et al. (2007). International Environmental Law and Policy, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Walters Kluwer Publishers.Google Scholar
Whalin, D. (1999). Is there still pre-1980 CERCLA liability after Eastern Enterprises?. Environmental Lawyer, 5, 701–73.Google Scholar
Whittaker, S. (2005). Liability for Products: English Law, French Law, and European Harmonization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by