论文部分内容阅读
作为美国联邦最高法院审理的第一个气候变化诉讼案件,马萨诸塞州诉环保署一案在气候变化法律史上具有里程碑意义。尽管美国环境署屡屡依据各种理由拒绝规制温室气体排放,但是美国联邦最高法院不仅对美国环保署拒绝制定规则的做法进行了司法审查,更以罕见的姿态否决了美国环保署所主张的行政裁量权。美国联邦最高法院在气候变化诉讼中所呈现的积极立场促使美国政府的气候变化政策出现了重大转变。但是,也有人由此批判美国联邦最高法院已成为一个身兼超级立法者和超级规制者的政治法院。
The case of Massachusetts v. EPA, the first climate change lawsuit before the United States Supreme Court, is a milestone in the legal history of climate change. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly refuses to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for various reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only conducted a judicial review of the EPA’s decision to refrain from formulating rules, but even more rarely vetoed the administrative discretion advocated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency right. The positive position of the United States Supreme Court in climate litigation has prompted a major shift in the U.S. government’s climate change policy. However, some people also criticize the Supreme Court of the United States as a political court, a super-legislator and a super-regulator.