Acceso usuarios
Países Bajos
This article explores how judicial approaches to science relate to the procedural legitimacy of rulingsin cases where the plaintiffs seek a change in a government's overall climate policy. It reviewschallenges in court interaction with climate science and compares two prominent cases:Urgendav. The State of the Netherlands and Neubauer et al. v. Germany. The selected lawsuits yieldcomparative interest in aiming for changes in national climate policies and emission mitigationtargets, involving the same kind of evidence (Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change) but resulting in partially opposing decisions. The analysis reveals that scientificinputs informed courts about climate change risks and mitigation measures. It also suggests thatdiffering approaches to scientific reports influenced contrasting decisions regarding mitigationtargets. Finally, it provides insights into how engagement with evidence might impact judgments'legitimacy from a procedural perspective.
