Receding Glaciers, Advancing Law: The Imperative of Using Best Available Science in the Case of <i>Lliuya</i> v. <i>RWE</i> and Beyond
後退する氷河、前進する法：Lliuya対RWE事件における最善の科学の活用の必要性とその先へ (AI 翻訳)
Petra Minnerop, Friederike E. L. Otto
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
2025年5月、ドイツの高等裁判所はLliuya対RWE事件で先駆的な判決を下し、ドイツ私法上の不法行為法が気候変動に関連する越境訴訟に適用可能と認めた。本論文は、裁判所が「切迫性」の基準を判断する際の科学的証拠の扱いを分析し、気候変動の物理法則とIPCCの評価を「最善の科学」のベースラインとすることを提案する。
English
This paper analyzes the landmark 2025 Lliuya v. RWE judgment in Germany, where the court confirmed the applicability of German nuisance law to transnational climate claims. It examines the court's handling of scientific evidence on 'imminence' and argues that the physical laws of climate change and IPCC assessments should form a baseline of best available science, with case-specific deviations requiring careful scrutiny.
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
日本では気候訴訟の蓄積が少ないが、企業のGHG排出責任や「切迫性」の解釈は、日本版スチュワードシップ・コードやSSBJ開示の文脈で今後重要性が増す可能性がある。ドイツの法理的枠組みは日本の法解釈の参考になり得る。
In the global GX context
This case sets a precedent for holding corporations liable for climate impacts under private law, relevant to global climate litigation trends. The discussion on 'best available science' and causal evidence standards could influence how ISSB and TCFD frameworks address legal liability risk in climate disclosures.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a legal-scientific framework for assessing causal evidence in climate litigation, useful for scholars at the intersection of law and climate science.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights potential legal liability risks for high-emitting corporations, informing climate risk disclosure and legal strategy.
🏛政策担当者:Offers insights into how courts interpret scientific uncertainty, relevant for designing climate liability laws and disclosure regulations.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract On 28 May 2025, the Higher Court of Appeal in Hamm (Germany) delivered a pioneering judgment in the case Lliuya v. RWE . The Court confirmed that German private nuisance law was applicable in the transnational context, and that the greenhouse gas emissions of the energy company RWE contributed to climate change and its adverse impacts. Based on the evidence provided, the Court concluded that the normative threshold of ‘imminence’ of a future, first-time property impairment was not reached. This article assesses the Court’s reasoning and the challenges it faced in determining ‘imminence’, considering conflicting scientific evidence. Against the backdrop of a legal and scientific analysis, the article argues that the physical laws underpinning climate change, and the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, form a baseline of ‘best available science’ for the legal assessment of climate risks. Case-specific evidence that deviates from this baseline requires careful consideration. Furthermore, the legal interpretation of causally relevant evidence must depend on whether the science provides a qualitative or a quantitative statement.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102526100314first seen 2026-07-08 04:58:45
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
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。