Judges as Narrators of the Climate Crisis? An Illustrative Analysis of the Decision of the German Constitutional Court from 24 March 2021

• Freya Schramm ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Amsterdam

     University of Amsterdam

     Países Bajos

     
• Localización: European papers: a journal on law and integration, ISSN-e 2499-8249, Vol. 7, Nº. 1, 2022, págs. 361-378
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • The reaction to the climate crisis is dominated by recurring political failure and a reluctance to engage in ambitious climate action individually and publicly. Against this setting the judiciary has been called into action to address the climate crisis, adapting general principles, including fundamental rights, to the phenomenon of global warming. Persuasive arguments are needed to compel individuals and policymakers to act in a foresightful manner that can combat global warming. Judicial decisions can transmit such arguments within society departing from the individual case. A narrative analysis can reveal the persuasiveness of judicial reasoning ad enable the re-imagining and stretching of existing law for the purpose of climate action. This Insight encourages Courts to engage in the role of a narrator. An analysis of the decision of the German Constitutional Court through the “interpretative lens” of narratives exposes how such an interdisciplinary perspective can enable the identification of the broader conviction communicated by the Court. Narratives showcase the interdependent relationship between judicial reasoning and societal debate by operating on an emotional level. The decision of the German Constitutional Court relating to the compatibility of the German Climate Act with fundamental rights illustrates how judges can become narrators of climate change and how this new perspective may benefit the understanding of the role of the judiciary in addressing the climate crisis.