BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
METHOD:PUBLISH
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
PRODID:-//WordPress - MECv7.33.0//EN
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://climatelitigation.uva.nl/
X-WR-CALNAME:Climate Litigation
X-WR-CALDESC:
X-WR-TIMEZONE:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Amsterdam
X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=03;BYDAY=-1SU
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=4SU
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:TRUE
BEGIN:VEVENT
CLASS:PUBLIC
UID:MEC-7ce3284b743aefde80ffd9aec500e085@climatelitigation.uva.nl
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20240527T153000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20240527T170000
DTSTAMP:20240619T170722Z
CREATED:20240619
LAST-MODIFIED:20250306
PRIORITY:5
SEQUENCE:3
TRANSP:OPAQUE
SUMMARY:Judicial Review and Democracy: Exposing a False Dilemma in the Discussion of Climate Litigation
DESCRIPTION:Please join us on 27 May to hear from Dr Christina Eckes, Professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam. Dr Eckes will be speaking about her research regarding the separation of powers in Europe and strategic climate litigation.\n\n\n\n\nAbstract\nOne of the most stubborn criticisms of strategic climate litigation (SCL) points at the apparent lack of democratic legitimacy of court decisions. This paper argues that the ‘democratic criticism’ does not sufficiently engage with the empirical reality beyond the court room and the cyclical nature of democratic decision-making. It defends the thesis that SCL contributes – at least under certain circumstances – to democratic decision-making on climate issues in three inter-related ways: First, SCL allows for representation and participation of those that otherwise do not have a voice in public decision-making (minors, future generations, foreigners). Second, judicial review can address ‘pathologies’ of the political process (fortified vested interests; misinformation). Third, the judiciary has the important function of demanding justification for public decision-making. The paper concludes that, within the procedural boundaries of the judicial process, the judiciary fulfils in SCL a significant role in the democratic process.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSpeaker\nChristina Eckes is professor of European law at the University of Amsterdam. Her current research interests are the separation of powers in 21st century Europe and strategic climate litigation in Europe. Her most recent publications examine the legal and factual exceptionalism of climate litigation, climate constitutionalisation, and the normative relevance of climate science in litigation.\nSince 2022, Christina Eckes participates in two Horizon Europe projects (Red Spinel and Gem Diamond, led by Université Libre de Bruxelles). Her contributions to both focuses amongst other things on the role of climate governance in the growing dissensus on liberal democracy.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCounter-majoritarian instruments & Liberal Democracy in EuropeIn this lecture series, we are exploring different aspects of how counter-majoritarian instruments and democracy interact; how they relate to inequality and social justice; and how they relate to citizens’ trust and rational decision-making.\nThis lecture series forms part of the RED-SPINEL Project. ( https://redspinel.iee-ulb.eu/ )\n\n\n\n\n\n
URL:https://climatelitigation.uva.nl/event/judicial-review-and-democracy-exposing-a-false-dilemma-in-the-discussion-of-climate-litigation/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR