Quantifying a 1.5 <sup>o</sup> C Fair Share Carbon Budget: Human Rights Obligations on Climate Change after <i>KlimaSeniorinnen</i>
1.5°Cに整合した公平な炭素予算の定量化：KlimaSeniorinnen判決後の気候変動における人権義務 (AI 翻訳)
Dennis Van Berkel, Floris Tan, Joe Udell, April Williamson
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、欧州人権裁判所のKlimaSeniorinnen判決を分析し、気候変動に対する人権保護には各国が1.5℃目標に整合した公平な炭素予算を定量化することが必要であると論じる。これにより、各国の排出削減目標の審査に新たな法的基準が導入され、国内削減だけでは不十分な場合、国外での排出削減貢献が求められる可能性を示す。
English
This paper analyzes the ECtHR KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, arguing that effective human rights protection requires states to quantify their fair share carbon budgets relative to the 1.5°C global carbon budget. It has far-reaching implications for scrutiny of states' emissions reduction targets, potentially requiring contributions to reductions outside their territory when domestic efforts are insufficient.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
本判決は、気候変動を人権問題として捉え、各国に炭素予算の算出を求める点で、日本の気候政策にも影響を与える可能性がある。特に、日本の排出削減目標の妥当性を国際的に問う新たな法的根拠となりうる。
In the global GX context
This judgment marks a pivotal moment for climate litigation globally, linking human rights to quantified carbon budgets. It could influence how courts and policymakers evaluate national climate targets, adding legal pressure for more ambitious and equitable emissions reductions.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a legal analysis of human rights-based carbon budget obligations, relevant for climate law and policy scholars.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for states to define and quantify their fair share carbon budgets to comply with human rights obligations.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract In the face of an escalating climate crisis, climate litigation is increasingly being utilized as a means to set boundaries to States’ lack of climate action. In what stands as one of the most consequential climate cases to date, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland that individuals have a human right to protection against the adverse effects of climate change. Through an in-depth analysis of the judgment, this Article explains the Court’s ruling that effective protection of human rights requires States to base their emissions reduction targets on a quantification of their fair share national carbon budgets in relation to the remaining global carbon budget for 1.5 o C. This has far-reaching implications for the scrutiny of States’ emissions reduction targets. The Article shows that, as a consequence of the rapidly depleting remaining carbon budget for 1.5 o C, States may no longer be able to remain within their fair share through domestic reductions alone. In such circumstances, States need to contribute to emissions reductions outside of their territory and reduce their domestic emissions at their highest level of ambition.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2026.10197first seen 2026-05-05 08:10:43 · last seen 2026-05-05 19:14:36
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。