The Judicialization of Climate Change Politics: A Comparative Analysis of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada

气候变化是当今政策议程上最紧迫的问题。面对《联合国气候变化框架公约》进展缓慢的挫折，非国家行为体越来越多地将目光投向国际领域之外，寻找有效治理气候变化的其他可能来源。有关气候变化诉讼的法律文献着眼于法院在决定如何监管温室气体排放及其影响方面发挥的日益重要的作用。在比较政治学中，关于政策司法化的文献——扩大法院和法官在决定公共政策结果方面的作用——在过去二十年中蓬勃发展。然而，这两个研究领域都倾向于忽视诉讼当事人可以拥有的自下而上的影响。在气候变化政策领域，关于谁在以气候变化的名义动用法律以及这一政策领域被司法化的程度，缺乏全面的、比较的研究。该项目侧重于非国家行为体和司法机构之间的动态。该项目将解决两个相关问题：1)如何解释气候变化政策司法化在不同国家和不同时期的差异？2)为什么一些气候变化活动家和气候怀疑论者选择在法庭上积极参与，而另一些人则完全避免使用法律策略来追求他们的政策目标？这项研究将依靠比较研究设计，考察气候变化政治司法化程度不同的国家：美国（司法化程度高）、加拿大（司法化程度相对较低）和英国（司法化程度介于两者之间）。该研究将部署一个社会法律方法论框架，该框架依赖于框架分析技术，旨在分析人们如何理解情况和活动，以及过程追踪，从而可以发现非国家行为体动员法律与法院更多地参与气候变化政策辩论之间的因果机制。在这样做的过程中，它将提供一种创新：对司法的社会学-制度主义解释。这意味着超越对政治和法律结构的分析，着眼于不同民间社会团体的动态和话语的重要性，以及它们自下而上对法院制定政策的影响。我将提供一个补充现有文献倾向于关注a)司法制度设计（例如司法审查的范围），b)司法行为（例如法官的意识形态）和c)政治决定因素（例如法官和立法者之间的紧张关系）来解释司法化水平的变化的解释。虽然这三个因素有一定的解释力，但它们本身并不能解释三个国家之间观察到的差异。我假设，愿意在法庭上调动现有环境立法的非国家组织的存在是司法化的关键条件。我将探讨诉讼当事人如何为法院提供参与气候变化政治的途径，通过构建他们的论点，使问题变得可审理。我将在不同国家、不同群体和不同类别的法律案例中进行测试，例如解决气候变化原因的法律案例（如燃煤能源、车辆排放监管）和考虑影响的法律案例（如栖息地破坏）。随着全球变暖对地球、社会和经济的影响越来越明显，我们比以往任何时候都更需要经验证据来帮助我们了解温室气体排放的原因和后果是如何受到监管的。我将超越学科范畴，审视非传统行为者和政策制定者——环境活动家、企业和法院——以提供一幅更全面的气候变化政治图景。

Climate change is the most pressing issue on the policy agenda today. In the face of frustration at the slow pace of progress under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, non-state actors have increasingly looked beyond the international realm for other possible sources of effective climate change governance. Legal literature on climate change litigation looks at the increasing role courts play in determining how greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts should be regulated. In comparative politics the literature on the judicialization of policy - the expansion of the role of courts and judges in determining public policy outcomes - has flourished over the last twenty years. However, both these fields of study have tended to ignore the bottom-up influence litigants can possess. In the domain of climate change policy there is a dearth of comprehensive, comparative research about who is mobilising the law in the name of climate change and the degree to which this policy area is being judicialized. This project focuses on the dynamics between non-state actors and judiciaries. The project will address two related questions:1) What explains variation, across countries and over time, in the judicialization of climate change policy? 2) Why do some climate change activists and climate sceptics choose to be active participants before courts while others completely eschew the use of legal strategies in pursuit of their policy goals?The study will rely on a comparative research design that looks countries with differing levels of judicialization of climate change politics: the United States (a high degree), Canada (relatively low) and the United Kingdom (in between). The research will deploy a socio-legal methodological framework that relies on techniques of frame analysis, that seeks to analyse how people understand situations and activities, and process tracing, which allows for the detection of causal mechanisms linking the mobilization of law by non-state actors with increased involvement of courts in climate change policy debates. In doing so, it will offer an innovation: a sociological-institutionalist explanation of judicialization. This means moving beyond analyses of political and legal structures to look at the significance of the dynamics and discourses of different civil society groups and the influence they have on court-made policy from the bottom-up. I will provide an account that complements the existing literature's tendency to focus on a) judicial institutional design (e.g. scope of judicial review), b) judicial behaviour (e.g. ideology of judges) and c) political determinants (e.g. tensions between judges and legislators) to explain variation in levels of judicialization. While these three elements have some explanatory power they alone cannot explain observed variation across the three countries. I hypothesize that the existence of non-state organizations willing to mobilize existing environmental legislation in the courts is a key condition for judicialization. I will explore how litigants can provide a route for courts to become engaged in climate change politics by framing their arguments in such a way that an issue becomes justiciable. I will test this across countries, across groups and across categories of legal cases within each country, for example legal cases addressing the causes of climate change (e.g. coal-powered energy, vehicle emissions regulation) and those considering impacts (e.g. habitat destruction). More than ever before, as the impact of global warming on the planet, society and the economy becomes clear, empirical evidence is needed to help us understand how the causes and consequences of greenhouse gas emissions are regulated. I will look beyond disciplinary repertoires to examine non-traditional actors and policy-makers - environmental activists, corporations and courts - to offer a more holistic picture of climate change politics.