Climate tipping points: Tracing the limits of political discretion

Abstract States’ current emission policies are far from being aligned with what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. Against this backdrop, an increasing number of lawsuits have been filed around the world. As of March 2024, most courts have exercised restraint in imposing substantive limits on the legislator’s discretion in determining emission levels. Judicial restraint commonly rests on two premises: Climate models yield wide uncertainty ranges and choosing emission reduction levels is a normative decision belonging to the political domain. By engaging best available science on climate tipping points, this article examines the reasoning in favour of political discretion through a due diligence and equity lens. The analysis concludes that all factual requirements are met for states to be under an obligation to align their mitigation policies with a global carbon budget which is expected to limit global warming to 1.5°C at a likelihood as high as state capacities allow for.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Leiden Journal of International Law
Published
2024-12-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156524000487
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Climate Change Policy and Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Climate tipping points: Tracing the limits of political discretion

Violetta Ritz
1 citations
Leiden Journal of International Law
Climate Change Policy and Economics
1.13
article

Climate tipping points: Tracing the limits of political discretion

Violetta Ritz
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract States’ current emission policies are far from being aligned with what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. Against this backdrop, an increasing number of lawsuits have been filed around the world. As of March 2024, most courts have exercised restraint in imposing substantive limits on the legislator’s discretion in determining emission levels. Judicial restraint commonly rests on two premises: Climate models yield wide uncertainty ranges and choosing emission reduction levels is a normative decision belonging to the political domain. By engaging best available science on climate tipping points, this article examines the reasoning in favour of political discretion through a due diligence and equity lens. The analysis concludes that all factual requirements are met for states to be under an obligation to align their mitigation policies with a global carbon budget which is expected to limit global warming to 1.5°C at a likelihood as high as state capacities allow for.

Leiden Journal of International LawVol. 38(2)
University of Kent (GB)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Climate Change Policy and Economics
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Climate tipping points: Tracing the limits of political discretion — Violetta Ritz · Leiden Journal of International Law (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS