We interviewed the winner of the EEEI 2024 award for her book “Expertises et argumentaires juridiques, contribution à l’étude des procès climatiques”.
Christel Cournil, who are you?
I am a professor of public law at Sciences Po Toulouse, specialising in environmental law, migration and human rights. I work in the LASSP laboratory, where I conduct research at the intersection of law, climate issues and citizen mobilisation.
Why this book? What is the need for it?
Climate-related lawsuits are multiplying around the world. But these cases are technical and complex. This collective book aims to decipher an aspect that is still little known: how these trials are prepared, and the expertise called upon in this singular type of litigation.
Tell us about the authors. Who are they?
They are legal researchers, NGO lawyers and legal practitioners. There are also researchers in political science, sociology, climate science and economics.
What is the aim of the ANR Proclimex research project?
This project is studying the production, place, and role of expert evidence in climate trials in all its diversity (legal, scientific, public policy evaluation, citizen reports, etc.). The project is taking place in a context where climate trials are becoming a major mobilisation tool, and where expert evidence plays a crucial role in the outcome of disputes.
Why are climate disputes so complex?
Firstly, because they are based on complex scientific data, such as emissions trajectories, carbon budgets and climate scenarios. Secondly, because they involve multiple responsibilities: those of governments and companies, sometimes spanning several decades. Finally, because these lawsuits raise new legal issues : admissibility of claimants who bring cases before the courts, liability of private entities, intertemporal guarantees of human rights, relationship with science, new forms of evidence, and the monitoring of the enforcement of court decisions.
What are the characteristics that make legal arguments and scientific assessments so complex?
Law and science do not always follow the same logic. The law looks for clear liabilities, evidence and causal links. Climate science, on the other hand, is often based on probabilities, models, and uncertainties. Bridging the gap between the two requires real translation, hence the complexity of the arguments in these trials.
Which courts have jurisdiction in climate change cases?
In France, cases are often referred to the administrative courts, in particular to rule on the State’s failure to act. However, civil courts (the Tribunal Judiciaire) can also have jurisdiction (for example, the appeal against a Carbon Major’s vigilance plan). Internationally, claims have been filed with regional human rights courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. At the international level, UN committees (quasi-judicial bodies) have issued findings and three international tribunals have so far been consulted on climate issues(ICJ, IACHR, ITLOS).
Is “climate justice” a thing? What would be its scope?
Climate justice is about asserting rights against the damage caused by climate change, or the inaction of those in charge. It involves human rights, intergenerational justice, equity between countries in the North and South and climate inequalities.
What are the place and the role of the judge?
Judges are playing an increasingly important role in climate governance. For example, they assess the extent to which a state has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. Judges can be seen as transforming the law by forcing governments to meet their climate obligations. But they often act cautiously, to remain within their institutional role, while respecting the separation of powers. Judges are thus becoming key players in the fight against global warming, using the law as a lever to impose concrete action.
Who are the experts involved in these trials?
There is a whole range of experts: legal experts, climate scientists, but also economists, health specialists, etc. Their role is to enlighten the judge on the technical aspects: what are the emissions? What are the impacts? What are the possible trajectories?
They are not generally experts registered on the official lists of court experts. In fact, climate expertise does not appear as such on the European lists of expert specialities.
What is the impact of the cross-disciplinary and cross-border nature of climate litigation cases on the choice of experts and the nature of their evidence?
Climate issues transcend national borders. This means that we need to mobilise experts with a wide range of backgrounds, capable of working with both global and local data, and taking account of different legal and cultural contexts. This cross-disciplinary approach makes expert evidence more complex, but also richer.
Experts often come from organisations such as the IPCC, universities or specialist institutes. Their work is governed by international standards, which influence the way expert reports are produced and used in court. To sum up, the cross-disciplinary and cross-border nature of climate cases require a careful selection of experts, an harmonisation of methodologies, and to take into account international standards in order to guarantee solid and credible expert reports.
How are French law and procedure influenced by climate litigation brought before foreign and supranational courts?
For example, landmark judgments such as the Urgenda case in the Netherlands have inspired litigation in Belgium and France, notably theAffaire du Siècle. And French courts are becoming more sensitive to European and international rulings, with French judges using these precedents to reinforce the State’s responsibility in climate matters.
The commitments made under the Paris Agreement and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR) have a direct influence on French judicial decisions.
French courts are adapting their methods to better deal with climate-related disputes, in particular by integrating more advanced scientific expertise and facilitating access to climate justice for NGOs and citizens.
In his concluding article, Laurent Fonbaustier talks about the “language of symptoms”. What are the climate trials a symptom of?
They are the symptom of a wider malaise: that of a legal system that is struggling to respond to the climate crisis, to protect future generations effectively and to provide a liability framework. They also reflect a need for recognition: recognition of losses, inequalities, and injustices caused by climate disruption.
Do climate law and litigation have a real impact on the fight against climate change?
They are not enough on their own. They can force governments to act, change laws, put pressure on companies and raise public awareness. These levers complement other forms of action, such as citizen mobilisation and international commitments.
Have any landmark court cases forced governments or companies to honour their climate commitments?
In the Netherlands, the Urgenda trial forced the government to tighten up its climate policy. In Germany, a ruling led to a review of a law deemed inadequate. In France, the Affaire du Siècle case recognised that the state was at fault and that ecological damage had been caused. These lawsuits set important precedents, even if it may take time to enforce them.
How can the mobilisation of citizens (NGOs, etc.) complement economic and political players?
Complementarity is essential. NGOs often play a leading role, taking legal action, mobilising public opinion and supporting victims. Their investigative, advocacy and expert work feeds the litigation and gives it a broader scope. Without this mobilisation, many climate lawsuits would simply not exist.
Could the climate be saved by climate trials?
Lawsuits alone will not save the climate. But they are a lever for highlighting responsible actors, changing the law and giving citizens a voice.
What’s next?
My next writing project will look at the ‘fossil exit’, its operationalisation and the fact that it still remains quiet in climate negotiations and national policies.
Français