When Climate Change ‘Encounters’ Human Rights and Science: Constructing a New Climate Regime in Court?

Principle Investigator：Chung-Hsien Lee

The research programme conducted by Legal scholar Chung-Hsien Lee departs from the results of previous investigations (and thoughts) into climate change litigation, the State of the Netherlands vs. Urgenda Foundation (2019) in particular.

This research highlights the pseudoism of the “perceived” neutrality of the court. The legal system employs the power of science to determine causation and the legitimacy of democracy to proceed with value judgment. It must make believed that the findings are value-free and in a dichotomy, allowing no grey areas to make a fair judgment. It is, therefore, the culprit in maintaining an air of perfect science and democracy, enabling people to view the legal practice as entirely mechanical and predictable. However, when confronting issues related to climate change, these structures are beginning to show their limits. Alternative legal paradigms are needed to overcome the limitations of relying only on scientific insights to determine climate-related causation and on human rights law to cope with the lack of political consensus at the international and municipal levels. This includes reassessing the assumed neutrality of court proceedings and confronting ambiguity within the legal system. The court cannot still struggle to maintain the self-produced illusion of the existence of perfect science and perfect democracy while determined to face the climate change emergency. In this regard, this research intends to stress the significance of actively reshaping the legal system and legal institutions, including courts, and thus creating a more adaptable platform to better welcome diverse voices from alternative sources when confronting the complexities of climate change.