Judicialization of Global Climate Governance: In Defence of the Paris Agreement

This article questions the effect that the delegation of global climate governance to the international judiciary may have on climate action. It argues that the underlying premise of the judicialization movement-namely, the existence of a broad international consensus as to the objectives of global climate change risk management-is contradicted by evidence, such as political declarations by governments, countries' nationally determined contributions, and domestic court judgments. Governments brought to court resist propositions that domestic or international legal norms subject them to quantitative emission reduction obligations that can be "objectively" determined on the basis of best available science, and national judiciaries make conflicting findings on the implications of science for climate policy. In this context, renouncement of the "bottom-up" Paris model which was designed specifically to address the complex landscape of diverse interests and risk perceptions across world regions and societies may have a chilling, rather than galvanizing, effect on climate action.