Europejskie prawo klimatyczne – „efekt motyla”
Marcin Pchałek
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4295-9060
Diana Trzcińska
Uniwersytet Gdańskihttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1439-7240
Abstract
Changes in climate systems currently occur following the principles of deterministic chaos. These principles, also known as the "butterfly effect," are based on the sensitivity to initial conditions in dynamic and nonlinear ecological and atmospheric phenomena. A few months before the ratification of the Paris Agreement by the EU, its institutions adopted the Agreement on Better Law-Making. This agreement aims to evaluate existing regulations in the context of the core principles of a democratic rule of law. The accumulated and diverse legislative acts introduced under the EU’s climate policy since April 2016 have triggered a "butterfly effect"—this time, however, within the EU’s legal framework. This article argues that the EU legislator has not attempted to achieve legislative transparency, a state certainly not achieved by the seemingly framework act, the European Climate Law. As a result, the normative system of the EU’s climate policy exemplifies an extremely disintegrated system, lacking a coherent terminological framework, climate quality standards, or doctrinally understood emissions permit institutions. The authors aim to refer current shape of legal regulation concerned with climate policy concerning systematic assumptions, that this regulation should meet. Within this aim, authors consider axiological aspects of climate policy, including the principle of coherence, the principle of legal certainty and the principle of proportionality. Scientific methods applied in the article are dogmatic and comparative analysis.
Keywords:
environment protection law, general rules of law, European Climate Law, framework acts, solidarity principle, quality of lawReferences
Abram N. et al., Yes, a few climate models give unexpected predictions, but the technology remains a powerful tool, https://theconversation.com/yes-a-few-climate-models-give-unexpected-predictions-but-the-technology-remains-a-powerful-tool-165611. Google Scholar
Barboza T., A brief timeline of U.S. climate pledges made, and discarded, https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-22/three-decades-of-us-climate-pledges-and-inaction. Google Scholar
Bernard A., Paltsev S., Reilly J., Vielle M., Viguier L., Russia’s role in the Kyoto Protocol, Joint Program Report Series Report 98, http://globalchange.mit.edu/publication/14396. Google Scholar
David S., Dunlop I., Existential climate-related security risk: a scenario approach, Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration, Melbourne 2019, https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/existential-climate-related-security-risk-scenario-approach. Google Scholar
Kolb R., Principles as sources of international law (with special reference to good faith), „Netherlands International Law Review” 2006, Vol. 53, No. 1, DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X06000015 Google Scholar
Kuyper J., Schroeder H., Linner B.O., The evolution of the UNFCCC, „Annual Review of Environment and Resources” 2018, Vol. 43, DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119. Google Scholar
Rawls J., A theory of justice, revised edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA) 1999, DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvkjb25m. Google Scholar
Schauenberg T., From Kyoto to Paris and beyond, https://www.dw.com/en/kyoto-protocol-climate-treaty/a-52375473. Google Scholar
Zhifeng J., Pacta sunt servanda and empire: a critical examination of the evolution, invocation, and application of an international law axiom, „Michigan Journal of international Law” 2022, Vol. 43, Issue 3, pp. 745–801, DOI: 10.36642/mjil.43.3.pacta. Google Scholar
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, eds. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe, Vol. 1: General Guidance and Reporting, IGES, Japan. Google Scholar
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
