Cover des Buchs: Klimaschutzklagen gegen den Staat in den USA und Indien
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Monographie Kein Zugriff

Klimaschutzklagen gegen den Staat in den USA und Indien

Offenheit der Rechtsordnungen im Vergleich
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2025

Zusammenfassung

Strategische Prozessführung zum Umweltschutz hat Tradition in den USA und in Indien. Wie offen sind diese zwei Common-Law-Rechtsordnungen für das Instrument der Klimaschutzklagen? In den USA werden diese trotz hoher rechtlicher Hürden in großer Zahl mit bisher überschaubarem Erfolg geführt. In Indien dagegen gibt es erst wenige Verfahren trotz nahezu idealer rechtlicher Rahmenbedingungen. Der Vergleich zeigt, welche Merkmale der Rechtsordnungen – darunter insbesondere das jeweilige Gewaltenteilungsgefüge – die Justiziabiliät des Klimawandels beeinflussen. Durch die Bezugnahme auf Indien sollen Perspektiven des Globalen Südens beleuchtet und selbstverständlicher werden.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Auflage
1/2025
Copyrightjahr
2025
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-2455-1
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-5199-5
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Studien zu Staat, Recht und Verwaltung/Studies on State, Law and Administration
Band
40
Sprache
Deutsch
Seiten
650
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 28
      1. I. Forschung zu Klimaschutzklagen in Deutschland Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Forschung zu Klimaschutzklagen weltweit Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Rechtsvergleichende Forschung zu den USA und Indien Kein Zugriff
    2. B. Auswahl der Rechtsordnungen Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Kontextuelle Rechtsvergleichung Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Klassischer Aufbau mit Länderberichten und Rechtsvergleich Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Wirksamkeits- und Makrovergleich Kein Zugriff
      4. IV. Verfügbarkeit von Gerichtsentscheidungen und Fachliteratur Kein Zugriff
    4. D. Rechtsvergleich als Methode, Forschungsobjekt und Diskursbeitrag zu Perspektiven des Globalen Südens Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Grundlagen der Bundesgerichtsbarkeit und Gang eines Zivilprozesses Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Einzelrechtsordnungen und Gerichtsbarkeit der Bundesstaaten Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Besonderheiten aus der Common-Law-Tradition Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Sechs Faktoren zur Bestimmung nicht-justiziabler politischer Fragen Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Schwindende Bedeutung der Political Question Doctrine in der Bundesrechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Justiziabilität wenig problematisch bei Anwendung und Auslegung einfachen Rechts Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Justiziabilität problematischer bei verfassungsrechtlich begründeten Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Rechtsprechung der Gerichte von Bundesstaaten Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Ergebnis: Geringe Relevanz der Political Question Doctrine als Zulässigkeitshindernis für Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Ursprünge der Standing-Doktrin Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Gesetzliches Standing nach dem Administrative Procedure Act (1946) Kein Zugriff
          3. c) Popularklagebefugnis durch gesetzliche Citizen-Suit-Regelungen Kein Zugriff
          4. d) Verfassungsrechtliche Mindestanforderungen für Standing Kein Zugriff
          5. e) Vereinfachtes Standing für Vereinigungen und Streitgenoss:innen Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Besondere Standing-Voraussetzungen für Bundesstaaten Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Vereinfachtes Standing bei Verletzung von Verfahrensrechten Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Keine Standing-Erleichterung durch Massachusetts v. EPA für Privatkläger:innen Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Subjektive Betroffenheit von Umweltschäden Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Injury-in-Fact bei Klimaschäden Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Generalized Grievances und das Problem weitverbreiteter Schäden Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Causation Kein Zugriff
          3. c) Redressability Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Ergebnis: Hohe Hürden für Klimaschutzklagen durch Standing-Anforderungen Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Ergebnis: Hohe verfahrensrechtliche Hürden für Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Grundlagen und Struktur der Umweltgesetzgebung Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Rulemaking Petitions bei Bundesbehörden Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Rulemaking Petitions bei bundesstaatlichen Behörden Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Überprüfung von Umweltfolgenabschätzungen nach dem National Environmental Policy Act Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Ergebnis: Beschränkte Reichweite umweltgesetzlicher Ansatzpunkte Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Systematik des Grundrechtsschutzes Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Nach Bedeutung des betroffenen Rechts gestufte Kontrolldichte Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Schutz auch für ungeschriebene Rechte und Freiheiten Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Strenge Kontrolle bei Einschränkung fundamentaler Rechte und Freiheiten Kein Zugriff
          3. c) Kontrollmaßstab Shocks-the-Conscience für Exekutivhandeln Kein Zugriff
              1. (a) Fundamentales Recht auf existenzsicherndes Klima in Juliana v. United States Kein Zugriff
              2. (b) Kein fundamentales Recht auf Klimaschutz in anderen Entscheidungen Kein Zugriff
              3. (c) In der Wissenschaft umstrittenes fundamentales Recht auf Klimaschutz Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Keine Relevanz der Due-Process-Garantien für Leben und Eigentum Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Ausnahmsweise Schutzpflichten des Staates bei Gefahrverursachung umstritten Kein Zugriff
          5. e) Ergebnis: Staatliche Klimaschutzpflichten aufgrund von Substantive Due Process nur bei erheblicher Rechtsfortbildung Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Entwicklung der Equal-Protection-Garantie Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Nach Bedenklichkeit der Unterscheidungsmerkmale gestufte Kontrolldichte Kein Zugriff
          3. c) Bedeutungsverlust der gestuften Kontrolle Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Zurückhaltung der Rechtsprechung gegenüber Klimaschutzpflichten aufgrund von Equal Protection Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Einzelne Literaturvorschläge zu Umwelt- und Klimaschutz mittels Equal Protection Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Unklare Dogmatik zu Synergien zwischen Due Process und Equal Protection Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Bedeutung der Methodik für eine Kombinierbarkeit von Due Process und Equal Protection Kein Zugriff
          6. f) Ergebnis: Allenfalls stützende Bedeutung von Equal Protection zur Begründung von Klimaschutzpflichten des Staates Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Keine praktische Relevanz anderer Grundrechtsansätze im Bundesrecht Kein Zugriff
        5. 5. Tragfähigere Umweltgrundrechte in Verfassungen von Bundesstaaten Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Spezifischer Anwendungsbereich der Public Trust Doctrine im 19. Jahrhundert Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Von den römischen Wurzeln der Public Trust Doctrine Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Joseph Sax und die Operationalisierung der Public Trust Doctrine für den Umweltschutz Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Public Trust Doctrine in der Umweltrechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Schiffbare Gewässer und Gezeitengewässer Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Luft und Atmosphäre Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Alle natürlichen Ressourcen Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Anwendbarkeit der Public Trust Doctrine im Bundesrecht Kein Zugriff
          3. c) Verdrängung der Public Trust Doctrine durch Gesetzesrecht Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Durchsetzbarkeit in Verbindung mit Umweltschutz- oder Public-Trust-Normen in Verfassungen von Bundesstaaten Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Durchsetzbarkeit in Verbindung mit der Bundesverfassung Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Ergebnis: Geringe Erfolgsaussichten für die Rechtsfortbildung der Public Trust Doctrine hin zu einer Atmospheric Trust Doctrine Kein Zugriff
      4. IV. Verfassungsrechtlich begründete Handlungspflicht bei Existenzgefährdung der Vereinigten Staaten durch Klimawandel Kein Zugriff
    4. D. Ergebnis: Hohe Hürden für Klimaschutzklagen im prozessualen und materiellen Recht der Vereinigten Staaten Kein Zugriff
    1. A. Erscheinungsformen von Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Verortung der indischen Rechtsordnung Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Aufbau der Gerichtsbarkeit Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Zuständigkeiten und Befugnisse Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Besetzung Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Geschäftsverteilung Kein Zugriff
          2. b) High Courts Kein Zugriff
          3. c) District Courts und Subordinate Courts Kein Zugriff
          4. d) National Green Tribunal als besonderes Umweltgericht Kein Zugriff
          5. e) Zwischenergebnis: Mehrere Eingangsinstanzen für Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Basic Structure Doctrine und die Beschränkung des verfassungsändernden Gesetzgebers durch die Rechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Sozialprogrammatischer Charakter der indischen Verfassung und die Directive Principles of State Policy Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Selbstverständnis der Rechtsprechung als Akteurin des gesellschaftlichen Wandels Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Grundrechtsbeschwerde als verfassungsrechtlicher Anker der Public Interest Litigation Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Eigene Beschwernis als ursprüngliche Voraussetzung des Standings Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Ausweitung des Standings auf Dritte und bei Belangen von öffentlichem Interesse Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Dogmatische Begründung des erweiterten Standings Kein Zugriff
            4. (4) Representative Standing und Citizen Standing Kein Zugriff
            5. (5) Eigennützigkeit einer Public-Interest-Beschwerde als Ausschlussgrund Kein Zugriff
            6. (6) Sporadische Anerkennung von Flüssen und Gletschern als Rechtspersönlichkeiten Kein Zugriff
            7. (7) Bisher kein Standing für künftige Generationen Kein Zugriff
            8. (8) Zwischenergebnis: Günstige Standing-Voraussetzungen für prozessuale Verfolgung von Umweltschutzzielen Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Verfahrenseinleitung durch formlosen Brief Kein Zugriff
          3. c) Verfahrenseinleitung durch das Gericht suo motu Kein Zugriff
          4. d) Amicus Curiae zur Unterstützung des Gerichts und Vertretung der öffentlichen Interessen Kein Zugriff
          5. e) Ersatz des kontradiktorischen Beweisrechts durch Amtsermittlung Kein Zugriff
          6. f) Continuing Mandamus zur Verfahrensleitung durch weitreichende Zwischenverfügungen Kein Zugriff
          7. g) Schleichende Ausdehnung des Streitgegenstandes Kein Zugriff
          8. h) Weitreichende Rechtsfolgen Kein Zugriff
          9. i) Urteilsbegründungen mit minimaler Rückbindung an Normen und Präjudizien Kein Zugriff
          10. j) Legislativ- und exekutivähnliches Tätigwerden der Gerichte durch Guidelines und Monitoringverfahren Kein Zugriff
        6. 6. Rechtspolitische Begründung der Public Interest Litigation Kein Zugriff
        7. 7. Public Interest Litigation in der Kritik Kein Zugriff
        8. 8. Zwischenergebnis: Public Interest Litigation als potenzielle Verfahrensart für Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
      4. IV. Justiziabilität von Klimasachverhalten Kein Zugriff
      5. V. Klagefrist Kein Zugriff
      6. VI. Ergebnis: Günstige Zulässigkeitsvoraussetzungen und prozessuale Rahmenbedingungen für Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Fragmentierte Architektur der indischen Umweltgesetzgebung und Aufsichtsbehörden Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Verschärfung von Klimaschutzmaßnahmen durch Generalklausel im Environment (Protection) Act Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Verschärfung der Treibhausgas-Regulierung nach dem Air (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Climate Change Action Plan als nicht-gesetzlicher Anknüpfungspunkt Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Erweiterung der Garantie des Rechts auf Leben in Art. 21 der Verfassung um Umweltbelange Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Spektrum der Formulierungen zum Umweltschutz im Rahmen von Art. 21 Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Unklare Kontur und Formulierung des Umwelt(grund)rechts Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Bedeutung der Directive Principles und Fundamental Duties für die umweltschützende Auslegung von Art. 21 Kein Zugriff
        5. 5. Ergebnis: Starke Verankerung von Umweltschutz im Recht auf Leben in Art. 21 durch die Rechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
          1. a) Dualistischer Verfassungstext und monistische Rechtsprechungspraxis Kein Zugriff
          2. b) Berücksichtigung von Völkerrecht bei der Auslegung von Verfassung und Gesetzen Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Schließen von Regelungslücken Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Unvereinbarkeit mit Völkerrecht als Zusatzargument Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Konzept der Nachhaltigen Entwicklung auf internationaler Ebene Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Einführung des Konzepts der Nachhaltigen Entwicklung durch die indische Rechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Nachhaltige Entwicklung als Abwägungsgrundsatz Kein Zugriff
            4. (4) Kritik in der indischen Rechtsprechung am anthropozentrischen Ansatz der Nachhaltigen Entwicklung Kein Zugriff
            5. (5) Zwischenergebnis: Nachhaltige Entwicklung als flexibler Abwägungsgrundsatz für die Ausübung gerichtlichen Ermessens Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Unterscheidung zwischen Precaution und Prevention im Völkerrecht Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Einführung des Vorsorgeprinzips durch die indische Rechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Inhalt des Vorsorgeprinzips im indischen Recht Kein Zugriff
            4. (4) Zwischenergebnis: Vorsorgeprinzip als allgemeiner Grundsatz des Vorbeugens vor und Beseitigens von Umweltschäden Kein Zugriff
            1. (1) Intergenerationelle Gerechtigkeit im internationalen Diskurs Kein Zugriff
            2. (2) Einführung der Intergenerationellen Gerechtigkeit durch die indische Rechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
            3. (3) Berücksichtigung Intergenerationeller Gerechtigkeit durch die Gerichte Kein Zugriff
            4. (4) Schwache Rezeption in der Literatur Kein Zugriff
            5. (5) Zwischenergebnis: Intergenerationelle Gerechtigkeit als unscharfer Grundsatz über die Einbeziehung der Interessen künftiger Generationen Kein Zugriff
          4. d) Ergebnis: Große Relevanz von umweltrechtlichen Prinzipien und Umweltvölkerrecht in der indischen Umwelt- und Verfassungsrechtsprechung Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Herleitung der Public Trust Doctrine aus römischem Recht und englischem Common Law Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Umweltschützende Weiterentwicklung der Doktrin Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Schutzdimensionen der Public Trust Doctrine Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Zunehmende verfassungsrechtliche Verortung der Lehre Kein Zugriff
        5. 5. Verschärfte gerichtliche Kontrolle aufgrund der Public Trust Doctrine Kein Zugriff
        6. 6. Häufige Verbindung der Public Trust Doctrine mit anderen Normen und Prinzipien Kein Zugriff
        7. 7. Ergebnis: Public Trust Doctrine als Ergänzung zum grundrechtlichen Ansatz von Klimaschutzklagen Kein Zugriff
      6. VI. Keine Relevanz deliktischer Anspruchsgrundlagen aus dem Common Law Kein Zugriff
        1. 1. Entstehung der indischen Umweltrechtsprechung im Kontext nationaler und internationaler Entwicklungen Kein Zugriff
        2. 2. Unterschiedliches Gewicht der Begründungsstränge Kein Zugriff
        3. 3. Variable Kombination von Begründungssträngen Kein Zugriff
        4. 4. Typische Kombinationen von Begründungssträngen Kein Zugriff
        5. 5. Eröffnen gerichtlicher Entscheidungsspielräume durch dogmatische Unschärfen Kein Zugriff
      8. VIII. Ergebnis: Grundsätzlich günstige materielle Rechtslage, aber im Einzelfall schwer prognostizierbare Gerichtsentscheidungen Kein Zugriff
    4. D. Ergebnis: Große potenzielle Offenheit und zugleich geringe Prognostizierbarkeit des indischen Rechts infolge weiten gerichtlichen Ermessens Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Bewahrende und liberale Verfassungstradition in den USA Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Dynamische Verfassungstradition in Indien zur Verwirklichung von Gerechtigkeit, Freiheit und Gleichheit in nationaler Einheit Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Offenheit für gemeinwohlorientierten Rechtsschutz in Indien Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Auf Individualrechtsschutz zugeschnittenes Verfahrensrecht in den USA Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Environmental Constitutionalism in Indien Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Umweltschutz als Leerstelle in der US-Bundesverfassung Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Behutsame Rechtsfortbildung in den USA Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Energische Rechtfortbildung in Indien Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Dogmentreue und detaillierte Exegese der US-Gerichte Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Ergebnisorientierte Argumentation der indischen Gerichte Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Postkoloniale Kontinuitäten englischen Rechts in den USA und Indien Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Selektive Offenheit für internationale Rechtseinflüsse in Indien Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Prinzipielle Reserviertheit gegenüber internationalen Rechtseinflüssen in den USA Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Indiens Streben nach Entwicklung und internationaler Führungsrolle neben innerstaatlichem Ringen um Gewaltenteilung und Verfassungshoheit Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Klimaschutz als mobilisierendes Reizthema der polarisierten US-Gesellschaft Kein Zugriff
    1. A. Hohe fundamentale rechtliche Hürden für Klimaschutzklagen in den USA Kein Zugriff
    2. B. Theoretisch ausgezeichnete rechtliche Voraussetzungen für Klimaschutzklagen in Indien Kein Zugriff
    3. C. Die Klimakrise als besondere Herausforderung für die Gerichte beider Rechtsordnungen Kein Zugriff
      1. I. Der Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Kein Zugriff
      2. II. Grundsätzliche Offenheit für Rechtsfortbildung und Sensibilität für Gewaltenteilung Kein Zugriff
      3. III. Systematische und begriffsorientierte Rechtsprechungsmethodik Kein Zugriff
      4. IV. Mittelstarke verfassungsrechtliche Verankerung des Umweltschutzes als Staatszielbestimmung Kein Zugriff
      5. V. Maßgeblicher Einfluss des Klimavölkerrechts und begrenzte Rezeptivität für rechtsvergleichende Einflüsse Kein Zugriff
      6. VI. Subjektiv-rechtlich ausgerichteter Verfassungsrechtsschutz als Hürde für gemeinwohlorientierte Klagen Kein Zugriff
      7. VII. Politischer und gesellschaftlicher Kontext des Klimabeschlusses Kein Zugriff
      1. USA Kein Zugriff
      2. Indien Kein Zugriff
      3. Sonstige nationale Normen Kein Zugriff
      4. Internationale Normen Kein Zugriff
      1. USA Kein Zugriff
      2. Indien Kein Zugriff
      3. Deutschland Kein Zugriff
      4. Andere nationale Verfahren Kein Zugriff
      5. Internationale Verfahren Kein Zugriff
      6. Verfahrensdokumente Kein Zugriff
    3. Literatur Kein Zugriff

Literaturverzeichnis (1179)

  1. Volkmann, Uwe, Verfassungsänderung und Verfassungswandel: Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis von Stabilität und Dynamik im Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, JuristenZeitung 2018, S. 265–271. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  2. Weiland, Paul/Horton, Robert/Beck, Erik, Environmental Impact Review, in: Gerrard, Michael B./Freeman, Jody (Hg.), Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 2. Aufl., Chicago 2014, S. 153–182. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  3. Weigelt, Karsten, Haftung Privater für Beiträge zum Klimawandel (Diss. Frankfurt a.M.), Baden-Baden 2022. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  4. Wegener, Bernhard W., Urgenda – Weltrettung per Gerichtsbeschluss?: Klimaklagen testen die Grenzen des Rechtsschutzes, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 3–13. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  5. Wedeking, Jim, Environmental Federalism, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 117–148. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  6. Wechsler, Herbert, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 1–35 (1959). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  7. Weaver, R. Henry/Kysar, Douglas A., Courting Disaster: Climate Change and the Adjudication of Catastrophe, 93 Notre Dame Law Review 295–356 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  8. Watt-Cloutier, Sheila, The Right to Be Cold: One Woman’s Story of Protecting her Culture, the Arctic and the Whole Planet, Toronto 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  9. Wagner, Christian, Das Politische System Indiens: Eine Einführung, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  10. Wadhawan, Julia, „Warum es ‚Fridays for Future‘ in Indien schwer hat“, in: jetzt.de, 27.09.2019, https://www.jetzt.de/umwelt/indien-wieso-die-fridays-for-future-bewegung-sich-dort-schwertut (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  11. Voßkuhle, Andreas, Art. 93 GG, in: Huber, Peter M./Voßkuhle, Andreas (Hg.), Grundgesetz, 3. Bd., 8. Aufl., München 2024. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  12. Vöneky, Silja, Key Challenges for Climate Change Litigation – Human Rights meet Precaution: The Duarte Agostinho Case, 65 German Yearbook of International Law 159–175 (2022). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  13. Weinstock, Robert A., The Lorax State: Parens Patriae and the Provision of Public Goods, 109 Columbia Law Review 798–843 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  14. Vishwanath, Apurva, „Explained: Lower judiciary and centralised recruitment debate“, in: The Indian Express (Online), 05.11.2021, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-lower-judiciary-centralised-recruitment-debate-7607709 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  15. Verheyen, Roda, Climate Change Damage and International Law: Prevention Duties and State Responsibility (Diss. Hamburg), Leiden 2005. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  16. Venkatesan, V., „SC May Have to Revisit Basic Structure Doctrine as Centre Defends Tribunal Reforms Act“, in: The Wire, 20.10.2021, https://thewire.in/law/sc-may-have-to-revisit-basic-structure-doctrine-as-centre-defends-tribunal-reforms-act (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  17. Van Cleve, George, Congressional Power to Confer Broad Citizen Standing in Environmental Cases, 29 Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 10028–10042 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  18. Vakil, Raeesa, Jurisdiction, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 367–385. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  19. Vaghela, Jaydeepsinh G., Judiciary of India and the Implementation of International Environmental Law in India: Some Remarks, in: Patel, Bimal N. (Hg.), India and International Law, 2. Bd., Leiden u.a. 2008, S. 453–466. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  20. UNICEF, „16 children, including Greta Thunberg, file landmark complaint to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child: Child petitioners protest lack of government action on climate crisis“, Pressemitteilung, 23.09.2019, New York, https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/16-children-including-greta-thunberg-file-landmark-complaint-united-nations (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  21. Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, Final Report: Mapping the Engagement of Domestic Courts with International Law, Report of the Seventy Seventh Conference, Johannesburg, International Law Association, London 2016, S. 996–1041. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  22. Tushnet, Mark, Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine, in: Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada/Cain, Bruce E. (Hg.), The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States, Lanham u.a. 2007, S. 47–74. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  23. Turner, P. G., Fusion and Theories of Equity in Common Law Systems, in: Goldberg, John C. P./Smith, Henry E./Turner, P. G. (Hg.), Equity and Law: Fusion and Fission, Cambridge 2019, S. 1–28. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  24. –, Atmospheric Trust Litigation Across the World, in: Coghill, Ken/Sampford, Charles/Smith, Tim (Hg.), Fiduciary Duty and the Atmospheric Trust, Surrey u.a. 2012, S. 99–163. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  25. Zweigert, Konrad/Kötz, Hein, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiet des Privatrechts, 3. Aufl., Tübingen 1996. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  26. Zeidler, Sophie, Klimahaftungsklagen: Die Internationale Haftung für die Folgen des Klimawandels (Diss. München), Berlin 2022. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  27. Young, Ernest A., Prudential Standing After Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 10 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 149–163 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  28. Yoshino, Kenji, A New Birth of Freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges, 129 Harvard Law Review 147–179 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  29. Wyman, Julia B., In States We Trust: The Importance of the Preservation of the Public Trust Doctrine in the Wake of Climate Change, Vermont Law Review 507–514 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  30. Wurman, Ilan, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment, Cambridge u.a. 2020. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  31. World Commission on Environment and Development, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: „Our Common Future“, United Nations, New York 1987. Zitiert als: Our Common Future. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  32. Worah, Sejal/Chohan, Shilpa/Vaidya, Archana, India’s Forests and the Judiciary: The Godavarman Story, Enviro Legal Defence Firm and WWF India, Delhi 2009, http://awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/indias_forests_and_the_judiciary.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  33. Woolhandler, Ann/Collins, Michael G., Overcoming Sovereign Immunity: Causes of Action for Enforcing the Constitution, in: Orren, Karen/Compton, John W. (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution, Cambridge u.a. 2018, S. 165–184. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  34. Wood, Mary Christina/Woodward, IV, Charles W., Atmospheric Trust Litigation and the Constitutional Right to a Healthy Climate System: Judicial Recognition at Last, 6 Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 633–683 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  35. –, Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, Cambridge 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  36. –, Soundings and Silences, in: Dixon, Rosalind/Stone, Adrienne (Hg.), The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge 2018, S. 21–60. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  37. –, Atmospheric Trust Litigation, in: Burns, William C. G./Osofsky, Hari M. (Hg.), Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches, Cambridge u.a. 2009, S. 99–125. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  38. –, Advancing the Sovereign Trust of Government to Safeguard the Environment for Present and Future Generations (Part II): Instilling a Fiduciary Obligation in Governance, 39 Environmental Law 91–140 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  39. –, Advancing the Sovereign Trust of Government to Safeguard the Environment for Present and Future Generations (Part I): Ecological Realism and the Need for a Paradigm Shift, 39 Environmental Law 43–90 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  40. Wood, Mary Christina, Protecting the Wildlife Trust: A Reinterpretation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 34 Environmental Law 605–645 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  41. Wiygul, Robert B., The Structure of Environmental Regulation on the Other Continental Shelf: Sources, Problems, and the Opportunity for Change, Journal of Energy, Natural Resources, & Environmental Law 76–180 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  42. Wittmann, Philipp, Der Schutz der Privatsphäre vor staatlichen Überwachungsmaßnahmen durch die US-amerikanische Bundesverfassung: Eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Schutzes der Privatsphäre in der Öffentlichkeit (Diss. Freiburg), Baden-Baden 2014. Zitiert als: Schutz der Privatsphäre. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  43. Winter, Steven L., The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance, 40 Stanford Law Review 1371–1516 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  44. Winter, Gerd, Armando Carvalho et alii versus Europäische Union: Rechtsdogmatische und staatstheoretische Probleme einer Klimaklage vor dem Europäischen Gericht, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 259–271. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  45. William S. Hein & Co., Inc., HeinOnline, www.heinonline.org (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  46. Weisbrod, Burton A./Handler, Joel F./Komesar, Neil K. (Hg.), Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis, Berkeley 1978. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  47. Storzer, Till Arne, Die Justiziabilität des Klima- und Umweltschutzes: Effektiver Rechtsschutz als Antwort auf strukturelle Durchsetzungsdefizite (Diss. Regensburg), Berlin 2024. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  48. –, Indian Judiciary: Annual Report 2022-23, Volume I, Supreme Court, New Delhi 2023, https://www.sci.gov.in/indian-judiciary-annual-report (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  49. –, Resolutions of Collegium, https://main.sci.gov.in/collegium-resolutions (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  50. –, Former Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, https://www.sci.gov.in/former-chief-justice-judges/ (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  51. Supreme Court of India, Indian Judiciary: Annual Report 2020-21, New Delhi 2021, https://www.sci.gov.in/indian-judiciary-annual-report (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  52. Sunstein, Cass R., What’s Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries,” and Article III, 91 Michigan Law Review 163–236 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  53. Sullivan, E. Thomas/Massaro, Toni M., The Arc of Due Process in American Constitutional Law, New York 2013. Zitiert als: The Arc of Due Process. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  54. Sullivan, E. Thomas (Hg.), Environmental Law Handbook, 24. Aufl., Lanham u.a. 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  55. Suchindran, B. N., From Kania to Sarkaria: Judicial Appointments from 1950 to 1973, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 3–17. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  56. –, The NJAC Case and Judicial Independance: Conceptual and Contextual Safeguards, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 168–194. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  57. Subramanium, Gopal, Writs and Remedies, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 614–626. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  58. Strauss, Peter L., Administrative Justice in the United States, 2. Aufl., Durham 2002. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  59. –, Indian Judiciary: Annual Report 2023-24, Volume I, Supreme Court, New Delhi 2024, https://www.sci.gov.in/indian-judiciary-annual-report (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  60. Stoevesandt, Martin, Aktivismus und Zurückhaltung im United States Supreme Court: eine Studie zur Rechtsprechung des amerikanischen Supreme Court im System der Gewaltenteilung zwischen Judikative und Legislative (Diss. Tübingen), Berlin 1999. Zitiert als: Aktivismus und Zurückhaltung. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  61. Stevenson, Dru/Eckhart, Sonny, Standing as Channeling in the Administrative Age, 53 Boston College Law Review 1357–1416 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  62. Stern, Scott W., Standing for Everyone: Sierra Club v. Morton, Supreme Court Deliberations, and a Solution to the Problem of Environmental Standing, 30 Fordham Environmental Law Review 21–103 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  63. Stein, Tine, Interessenvertretung der Natur in den USA: mit vergleichendem Blick auf die deutsche Rechtslage, Baden-Baden 2002. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  64. Srivastava, D. K., Sexual Harassment and Violence against Women in India: Constitutional and Legal Perspectives, in: Kumar, C. Raj/Chockalingam, K. (Hg.), Human Rights, Justice, and Constitutional Empowerment, New Delhi 2007, S. 486–512. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  65. Srivastava, Ashit/Yadav, Shashikant, „The Standards of Basic Structure: Questioning The Master of The Roster“, in: The Leaflet, 09.02.2021, https://www.theleaflet.in/the-standards-of-basic-structure-questioning-the-master-of-the-roster (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  66. Srinivasan, J., Impact of Climate Change in India, in: Dubash, Navroz K. (Hg.), India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development, New Delhi 2019, S. 31–44. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  67. –, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: A Man for All Seasons, in: Kumar, C. Raj/Chockalingam, K. (Hg.), Human Rights, Justice, and Constitutional Empowerment, New Delhi 2007, S. xvii–xxi. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  68. –, Introduction to Judicial Review in India, 4 Judicial Review 126–129 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  69. Sorabjee, Soli J., Equality in the United States and India, in: Rosenthal, Albert J./Henkin, Louis (Hg.), Constitutionalism and Rights: The Influence of the United States Constitution Abroad, New York 1990, S. 94–124. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  70. –, „SC Collegium Sent 106 Names for Judges, 9 for CJs, but Centre Cleared Only 8 Names: CJI“, in: The Wire, 03.10.2021, https://thewire.in/law/sc-collegium-sent-106-names-for-judges-9-for-cjs-but-centre-cleared-only-8-names-cji (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  71. Tribe, Laurence, American Constitutional Law, 1. Bd., 3. Aufl., New York 2000. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  72. Torres, Robert, Foundational But Not Fundamental: No Right to the Environment, 31 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 175–213 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  73. Torres, Gerald/Bellinger, Nathan, The Public Trust: The Law’s DNA, 4 Wake Forest Jounal of Law & Policy 281–317 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  74. –, A “Sense of Equity” in Environmental Justice Litigation, 44 Harvard Environmental Law Review 169–233 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  75. Todd, Jeff, A Fighting Stance in Environmental Justice Litigation, 50 Environmental Law 557–614 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  76. Tidmarsh, Jay/Murray, Brian J., A Theory of Federal Common Law, 100 Northwestern University Law Review 585–654 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  77. Thomas, K. T., Judicial Review and Parliamentary Power: Reorienting the Balance, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 73–83. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  78. Thiruvengadam, Arun K., Tribunals, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 412–431. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  79. Theurer, Karina, Globalisierung und „Hunger by Design“: der Kampf für soziale und wirtschaftliche Rechte: Gespräch mit Colin Consalves, in: Theurer, Karina/Kaleck, Wolfgang (Hg.), Dekoloniale Rechtskritik und Rechtspraxis, Baden-Baden 2020, S. 357–365. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  80. ThePrint Team, „PM Modi is Versatile Genius, Internationally Acclaimed Visionary: Justice Arun Mishra“, in: ThePrint.in, 22.02.2020, https://theprint.in/india/modi-versatile-genius-internationally-acclaimed-visionary-arun-mishra/369399 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  81. Somasundaram, Niran, State Court Solutions: Finding Standing for Private Climate Change Plaintiffs in the Wake of Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 42 Ecology Law Quarterly 491–520 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  82. The Wire Staff, „Nine New Judges Administered Oath of Office, Raising SC’s Strength to 33“, in: The Wire, 31.08.2021, https://thewire.in/law/nine-new-supreme-court-judges-oath-of-office (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  83. Thakur, Dushyant, Invoking Equity Jurisdiction of the Indian Supreme Court: Scope and Limits, 3 NLIU Law Review 97–126 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  84. Terris, Bruce J., Ex Nihilo – The Supreme Court's Invention of Constitutional Standing, 45 Environmental Law 849–893 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  85. Taylor, R. Trent, The Obsolescence of Environmental Common Law, 40 Ecology Law Currents 1–9 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  86. Talib, Javaid, Constitutionalizing the Problem of Environment, 47 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 522–539 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  87. Taj Trapezium Zone Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, http://www.ttzagra.com (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  88. Swanegan, J. R./Pogdor, Ellen S., Overview of U.S. Law, 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  89. –, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, https://www.sci.gov.in/jurisdiction (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  90. –, Case Status, https://www.sci.gov.in/case-status-case-no (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  91. –, Indian Judiciary: Annual Report 2023-24, Volume II, High Courts, New Delhi 2024, https://www.sci.gov.in/indian-judiciary-annual-report (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  92. Anderson, Michael R., Individual Rights to Environmental Protection in India, in: Boyle, Alan E./Anderson, Michael R. (Hg.), Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection, Oxford 1996, S. 200–225. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  93. –, International Environmental Law in Indian Courts, 7 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 21–30 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  94. Andhyarujina, T. R., A Committed Judiciary: Indira Gandhi and Judicial Appointments, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 18–30. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  95. Araiza, William D., The Public Trust as an Interpretive Canon, 45 University of California Davis Law Review 693–740 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  96. –, Enforcing the Equal Protection Clause: Congressional Power, Judicial Doctrine, and Constitutional Law, New York 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  97. Atapattu, Sumudu, Human Rights Approaches to Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities, Abingdon u.a. 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  98. –, Global South Approaches, in: Rajamani, Lavanya/Peel, Jacqueline (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2. Aufl., Oxford 2021, S. 183–199. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  99. Austin, Granville, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, New Delhi 1999. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  100. Autoren der Universität Freiburg, „Lost in Translation“, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung (Online), 18.05.2018, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/rassismusdebatte-lost-in-translation-1.3983863 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  101. Babcock, Hope M., The Public Trust Doctrine: What a Tall Tale They Tell Essay, 61 South Carolina Law Review 393–414 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  102. –, The Federal Government Has an Implied Moral Constitutional Duty to Protect Individuals from Harm Due to Climate Change: Throwing Spaghetti against the Wall to See What Sticks, 45 Ecology Law Quarterly 735–786 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  103. Badrinarayana, Deepa, The “Right” Right to Environmental Protection: What We Can Discern from the American and Indian Constitutional Experience, Brooklyn Journal of International Law 75–129 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  104. Bandopadhyay, Saptarishi, Sustainable Development and Indian Environmental Jurisprudence, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 107–151. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  105. Banerjee, Atreyo, „Do Indians Really Have a Right Against the Adverse Effects of Climate Change?“, in: The Wire, 19.10.2024, https://thewire.in/law/do-indians-really-have-a-right-against-the-adverse-effects-of-climate-change. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  106. Barkow, Rachel E., More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy, 102 Columbia Law Review 237–336 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  107. –, The Rise and Fall of the Political Question Doctrine, in: Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada/Cain, Bruce E. (Hg.), The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States, Lanham u.a. 2007, S. 23–45. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  108. Barresi, Paul A., The Polluter Pays Principle as an Instrument of Municipal and Global Environmental Governance in Climate Change Mitigation Law: Lessons from China, India, and the United States, 10 Climate Law 50–93 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  109. Baruah, Pritam/Volkmann, Uwe, Concepts of Democracy, in: Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun (Hg.), Democratic Constitutionalism in India and the European Union: Comparing the Law of Democracy in Continental Polities, Cheltenham u.a. 2021, S. 43–74. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  110. Bast, Jürgen/Thiruvengadam, Arun, Origins and pathways of constitutionalism, in: Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun (Hg.), Democratic Constitutionalism in India and the European Union: Comparing the Law of Democracy in Continental Polities, Cheltenham u.a. 2021, S. 75–103. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  111. Basu, Durga Das/Subramani, S. S., Commentary on the Constitution of India, Articles 25 to 35, 6. Bd., 9. Aufl., Gurgaon 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  112. Baum, Lawrence, The Supreme Court, 6. Aufl., Washington, D.C. 1998. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  113. Baviskar, Amita, Space, power and identity in the making of metropolitan Delhi, 175 International Social Science Journal 89–98 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  114. Baxi, Upendra, Taking suffering seriously: social action litigation in the Supreme Court of India, International Commission of Jurists Review 37–49 (1982). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  115. –, Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, 4 Third World Legal Studies 107–132 (1985). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  116. –, Saint Granville’s Gospel: Reflections, 36 Economic & Political Weekly 921–930 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  117. –, The Promise and Peril of Transcendental Jurisprudence: Justice Krishna Iyer’s Combat with the Production of Rightlessness in India, in: Kumar, C. Raj/Chockalingam, K. (Hg.), Human Rights, Justice, and Constitutional Empowerment, New Delhi 2007, S. 3–33. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  118. –, The Rule of Law in India, 4 Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 7–25 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  119. –, Postcolonial Legality: A Postscript from India, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2012, S. 178–194. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  120. –, Law, Politics, and Constitutional Hegemony: The Supreme Court, Jurisprudence and Demosprudence, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 94–109. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  121. Beck, Harrison, Locating Liability for Climate Change: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Trends in Climate Jurisprudence, 50 Environmental Law 885–918 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  122. Berger, Raoul, Standing to Sue in Public Actions: Is It a Constitutional Requirement, 78 Yale Law Journal 816–840 (1969). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  123. Bergkamp, Lucas, A Dutch Court’s Revolutionary Climate Policy Judgment: The Perversion of Judicial Power, the State’s Duties of Care, and Science, Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 2015, S. 241–263. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  124. Berkemann, Jörg, „Freiheitschancen über die Generationen“ (Art. 20a GG) – Intertemporaler Klimaschutz im Paradigmenwechsel, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 2021, S. 702–715. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  125. Berliner, Zachary L., What about Uncle Sam?: Carving a New Place for the Public Trust Doctrine in Federal Climate Litigation, 21 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 339–358 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  126. Bethge, Herbert, § 31 BVerfGG, in: Schmidt-Bleibtreu, Bruno/Klein, Franz/Bethge, Herbert (Hg.), Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, München 2023. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  127. Beyerlin, Ulrich, Different types of norms in international environmental law: policies, principles, and rules, in: Bodansky, Daniel/Brunnée, Jutta/Hey, Ellen (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 1. Aufl., Oxford 2007, S. 425–448. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  128. –, Sustainable Development, in: Wolfrum, Rüdiger (Hg.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, IX. Bd., Oxford 2012, S. 716–722. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  129. Bhagwati, Prafullachandra Natwarlal, Interview with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AdgzBgNki8&t=316s (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  130. Bhansali, S. R., The Constitution of India: An Exhaustive, Critical and Analytical Commentary of the Constitution, 1. Bd., Delhi 2007. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  131. Bhatia, Gautam, Directive Principles of State Policy, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 644–661. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  132. –, The Sole Route to an Independent Judiciary? The Primacy of Judges in Appointment, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 135–145. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  133. Bhatia, Ravi P., Evolution of Judicial Activism in India, 45 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 262–274 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  134. Bhullar, Lovleen, The Judiciary and the Right to Environment in India: Past, Present and Future, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 21–54. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  135. –, The Polluter Pays Principle: Scope and Limits of Judicial Decisions, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 152–191. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  136. Bhupatiraju, Sandeep/Chen, Daniel L./Joshi, Shareen/u.a., Environmental Litigation as Scrutiny: A Four Decade Analysis of Justice, Firms, and Pollution in India, Environmental Litigation as Scrutiny: A Four Decade Analysis of Justice, Firms, and Pollution in India, 2024, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5013333 (Stand: 29.12.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  137. Bhuwania, Anuj, Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India, Cambridge 2017. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  138. Bickel, Alexander M., Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 Harvard Law Review 40–79 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  139. –, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2. Aufl., New Haven u.a. 1986. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  140. Bickenbach, Christian, Subjektiv-öffentliches Recht auf Klimaschutz? Die Erderwärmung vor den Gerichten, JuristenZeitung 2020, S. 168–177. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  141. Blumm, Michael C./Gurthie, Rachel D., Internationalizing the Public Trust Doctrine: Natural Law and Constitutional and Statutory Approaches to Fulfilling the Saxion Vision, 44 University of California Davis Law Review 741–808 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  142. Blumm, Michael C./Schaffer, Lynn S., Federal Public Trust Doctrine: Misinterpreting Justice Kennedy and Illinois Central Railroad, 45 Environmental Law 399–430 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  143. Blumm, Michael C./Wood, Mary Christina, The Public Trust Doctrine in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, 2. Aufl., Durham 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  144. –, No Ordinary Lawsuit: Climate Change, Due Process, and the Public Trust Doctrine, 67 American University Law Review 1–87 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  145. Böhm, Isabell, Staatsklimahaftung: Die klimarechtliche Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands und der EU (Diss. Potsdam), Baden-Baden 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  146. Boysen, Sigrid/Chanda, Aparna, Equality and diversity in constitutional discourses, in: Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun (Hg.), Democratic Constitutionalism in India and the European Union: Comparing the Law of Democracy in Continental Polities, Cheltenham u.a. 2021, S. 104–135. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  147. Bradford, Gregory, Simplifying state standing: the role of sovereign interests in future climate litigation, Boston College Law Review 1065–1103 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  148. Braig, Katharina Franziska/Ehlers-Hofherr, Angela, Diese andere Potenzielle Katastrophe: Wie kann der EGMR dazu beitragen, die Klimakrise einzudämmen?, Natur und Recht 2020, S. 589–595. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  149. Bray, Samuel L., Equity: Notes on the American Reception, in: Goldberg, John C. P./Smith, Henry E./Turner, P. G. (Hg.), Equity and Law: Fusion and Fission, Cambridge 2019, S. 31–45. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  150. Breakfield, Ashley E., Political Cases or Political Questions: The Justiciability of Public Nuisance Climate Change Litigation and the Impact on Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, 17 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 39–62 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  151. Breedon, Kimberly, Remedial Problems at the Intersection of the Political Question Doctrine, the Standing Doctrine, and the Doctrine of Equitable Discretion, 34 Ohio Northern University Law Review 523–566 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  152. Britz, Gabriele, Klimaschutz in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2022, S. 825–833. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  153. Brown Weiss, Edith, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity, Tokyo 1989. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  154. –, Implementing intergenerational equity, in: Fitzmaurice, Malgosia/Ong, David M./Merkouris, Panos (Hg.), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Cheltenham u.a. 2010, S. 100–116. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  155. Brownell, F. William, State Common Law of Public Nuisance in the Modern Administrative State, 24 Natural Resources & Environment 34–37 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  156. Brownell, F. William/Boczkaj-Gonzalez, Radoslawa, Clean Air Handbook, Lanham u.a. 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  157. Brugger, Winfried, Einführung in das öffentliche Recht der USA, 2. Aufl., München 2001. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  158. Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew, One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, 67 Duke Law Journal 481–556 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  159. Buckel, Sonja/Pichl, Maximilian/Vestena, Carolina A., Legal Struggles: A Social Theory Perspective on Strategic Litigation and Legal Mobilisation, Soc. & Legal Stud. 1–21 (2023). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  160. Burg, Michael S., Constitutional Law - Standing - The Zone of Interest Test of Data Processing Held Inapplicable to Plaintiff’s Standing in a Suit between Private Parties, 19 Villanova Law Review 507–518 (1974). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  161. Burger, Michael/Wentz, Jessica, Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Proper Scope of NEPA Review, 41 Harvard Environmental Law Review 109–188 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  162. Burghardt, Boris/Thönnes, Christian, Mit Recht gegen die Macht, in: Graser, Alexander/Helmrich, Christian (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019, S. 65–71. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  163. Burnham, William/Reed, Stephen F., Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, 7. Aufl., St. Paul 2021. Zitiert als: Law and Legal System of the U.S. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  164. Burns, William C. G./Osofsky, Hari M. (Hg.), Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches, Cambridge u.a. 2009. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  165. Buser, Andreas, Eine allgemeine Klimaleistungsklage vor dem VG Berlin, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2020, S. 1253–1255. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  166. –, Ein Grundrecht auf Klimaschutz? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen grundrechtlicher Klimaklagen in Deutschland, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2020, S. 1389–1396. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  167. Calliess, Christian, Abstand halten: Rechtspflichten der Klimaschutzpolitik aus planetaren Grenzen, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 385–387. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  168. –, Umweltpolitik im Grundgesetz, Juristische Schulung 2023, S. 1–9. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  169. Cassels, Jamie, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible?, 37 American Journal of Comparative Law 495–519 (1989). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  170. Castillo, Kassandra, Climate Change & The Public Trust Doctrine: An Analysis of Atmospheric Trust Litigation, 6 San Diego Journal of Climate & Energy Law 221–245 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  171. Central Empowered Committee, Constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, https://cecindia.in/ (Stand: 30.03.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  172. Chakravarty, Bhaskar Kumar, Environmentalism: Indian Constitution and Judiciary, 48 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 99–105 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  173. Chandra, Aparna/Hubbard, William H. J./Kalantry, Sital, The Supreme Court of India: A People’s Court?, 1 Indian Law Review 145–181 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  174. –, The Supreme Court of India: An Empirical Overview of the Institution, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 43–76. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  175. Chandra, Geetanjali, Public Interest Litigation and Environmental Protection, Delhi 2005. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  176. Chandrachud, Abhinav, An Independent, Colonial Judiciary: A History of the Bombay High Court during the British Raj, 1862–1947, Oxford 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  177. Chandrachud, Chintan, Constitutional Interpretation, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 73–93. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  178. –, Balanced Constitutionalism: Courts and Legislatures in India and the United Kingdom, New Delhi 2017. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  179. Chaturvedi, Eeshan, Climate Change Litigation: Indian Perspective, German Law Journal 2021, S. 1459–1470. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  180. Chatzinerantzis, Alexandros/Appel, Markus, Haftung für den Klimawandel, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2019, S. 881–886. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  181. Chatzinerantzis, Alexandros/Herz, Benjamin, Climate Change Litigation – Der Klimawandel im Spiegel des Haftungsrechts, Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift 2010, S. 594–598. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  182. Chemerinsky, Erwin, Substantive Due Process, 15 Touro Law Review 1501–1534 (1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  183. –, The State-Created Danger Doctrine, 23 Touro Law Review 1–26 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  184. –, Who Should Be the Authoritative Interpreter of the Constitution? Why There Should Not Be a Political Question Doctrine, in: Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada/Cain, Bruce E. (Hg.), The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States, Lanham u.a. 2007, S. 181–197. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  185. –, The Rational Basis Test Is Constitutional (and Desirable), 14 Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 401–416 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  186. –, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, 6. Aufl., New York 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  187. Chemerinsky, Erwin/Choper, Jesse H., Federal Jurisdiction, New York 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  188. Chhibber, Maneesh, „Supreme Court judges gushing over Modi is a problem for judiciary and democracy“, in: ThePrint.in, 26.02.2020, https://theprint.in/opinion/supreme-court-judges-gushing-over-modi-is-a-problem-for-judiciary-and-democracy/370935 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  189. Chimni, B. S., International Law Scholarship in Post-colonial India: Coping with Dualism, 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 23–52 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  190. Chitalkar, Poorvi/Gauri, Varun, The Recent Evolution of Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Supreme Court, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 77–91. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  191. Choper, Jesse H., The Political Question Doctrine: Suggested Criteria, 54 Duke Law Journal 1457–1523 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  192. Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu, Locating Indian Constitutionalism, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 1–13. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  193. - (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  194. Chowdhury, Nupur/Srivastava, Nidhi, The National Green Tribunal in India: Examining the Question of Jurisdiction, 21 Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 190–216 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  195. Chowdhury, Rishad Ahmed, Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court, 5 NUJS Law Review 351–377 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  196. Christiansen, Anna, Up in the Air: A Fifty-State Survey of Atmospheric Trust Litigation Brought by Our Children’s Trust, Utah Law Review 867–915 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  197. Coghill, Ken/Sampford, Charles/Smith, Tim (Hg.), Fiduciary Duty and the Atmos-pheric Trust, Surrey u.a. 2012. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  198. Cohen, Harlan Grant, A Politics-Reinforcing Political Question Doctrine, Arizona State Law Journal 1–60 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  199. Cohen-Eliya, Moshe/Porat, Iddo, The Administrative Origins of Constitutional Rights and Global Constitutionalism, in: Jackson, Vicki C./Tushnet, Mark (Hg.), Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges, New York 2017, S. 103–129. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  200. Cohn, Margit, Form, Formula and Constitutional Ethos: The Political Question/Justiciability Doctrine in Three Common Law Systems, 59 American Journal of Comparative Law 675–713 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  201. Conrad, Chris, Judicial Power in the Laboratory: State Court Treatment of the One Good Plaintiff Rule, 108 Georgetown Law Journal 767–802 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  202. Conrad, Dieter, Limitation of Amendment Procedures and the Constituent Power, in: Lütt, Jürgen/Singh, Mahendra P. (Hg.), Zwischen den Traditionen: Probleme des Verfassungsrechts und der Rechtskultur in Indien und Pakistan: Gesammelte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1970 - 1990 Stuttgart 1999, S. 47–85, urspr. in Indian Year Book of International Affairs 1966–1967, S. 387–430. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  203. –, Die Zukunft des indischen Rechtsstaates, in: Lütt, Jürgen/Singh, Mahendra P. (Hg.), Zwischen den Traditionen: Probleme des Verfassungsrechts und der Rechtskultur in Indien und Pakistan: Gesammelte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1970 - 1990, Stuttgart 1999, S. 135–147, urspr. in: Rothermund (Hrsg.), Erste Heidelberger Südasiengespräche, Stuttgart 1990, S. 55–74. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  204. –, Lütt, Jürgen/Singh, Mahendra P. (Hg.), Zwischen den Traditionen: Probleme des Verfassungsrechts und der Rechtskultur in Indien und Pakistan: Gesammelte Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1970 - 1990, Stuttgart 1999. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  205. Cooper, Christi, YOUTH v GOV, USA 2020, https://www.youthvgovfilm.com (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  206. Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire, Intergenerational Justice in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, in: Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire/Szabó, Marcel/Harrington, Alexandra R. (Hg.), Intergenerational Justice in Sustainable Development Treaty Implementations: Advancing Future Generations Rights through National Institutions, Cambridge 2021, S. 731–753. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  207. –, International Treaty Law and Policy for Future Generations, in: Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire/Szabó, Marcel/Harrington, Alexandra R. (Hg.), Intergenerational Justice in Sustainable Development Treaty Implementations: Advancing Future Generations Rights through National Institutions, Cambridge 2021, S. 47–67. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  208. Cottrell, Jill, The Indian Judges’ Transfer Case, 33 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1032–1045 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  209. Cox, Roger H. J., The Liability of European States for Climate Change, 30 Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 125–135 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  210. Craig, Robin Kundis, A Comparative Guide to the Eastern Public Trust Doctrines: Classifications of States, Property Rights, and State Summaries, 16 Penn State Environmental Law Review 1–114 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  211. –, A Comparative Guide to the Western States’ Public Trust Doctrines: Public Values, Private Rights, and the Evolution Toward an Ecological Public Trust, 37 Ecology Law Quarterly 53–197 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  212. –, Due Process Challenges, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 277–302. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  213. –, Standing and Environmental Law, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 195–216. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  214. –, Constitutional Environmental Law, or, the Constitutional Consequences of Insisting That the Environment Is Everybody's Business, 49 Environmental Law 703–736 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  215. Cremer, Wolfram, Verfassungskräftiger Klimaschutz nach Maßgabe völkerrechtlich verbindlicher Verpflichtungen und Ziele, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 278–283. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  216. Cress, Caroline, It’s Time to Let Go: Why the Atmospheric Trust Won’t Help the World Breathe Easier, 92 North Carolina Law Review 236–276 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  217. Crimmins, A.R./Avery, C.W./Easterling, D.R./u.a., Fifth National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C. 2023, https://nca2023.globalchange.gov (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  218. Cullet, Philippe/Koonan, Sujith (Hg.), Research Handbook on Law, Environment and the Global South, Cheltenham 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  219. Cunningham, Clark D., Public Interest Litigation in Indian Supreme Court: A Study in Light of American Experience, 29 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 494–523 (1987). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  220. –, The World’s Most Powerful Court: Finding the Roots of India’s Public Interest Litigation – Revolution in the Hussainara Khatoon Prisoners Case, in: Sathe, S. P./Narayan, Sathya (Hg.), Liberty, Equality and Justice: Struggles for a New Social Order, Lucknow 2003, S. 83–96. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  221. Curry, Ian R., Establishing Climate Change Standing: A New Approach, 36 Pace Environmental Law Review 297–331 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  222. Cushman, Barry, Federalism, in: Orren, Karen/Compton, John W. (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution, Cambridge 2018, S. 185–223. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  223. Dale, Tom/Carter, Vernon Gill, Topsoil and Civilization, Norman 1955. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  224. Daly, Erin, Environmental Constitutionalism in Defense of Nature, 53 Wake Forest Law Review 667–690 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  225. Dann, Philipp/Hanschmann, Felix, Postkoloniale Theorien, Recht und Rechtswissenschaft: Einleitung in den Schwerpunkt, Kritische Justiz 2012, S. 127–130. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  226. Dann, Philipp/Riegner, Michael/Bönnemann, Maxim, The Southern Turn in Comparative Constitutional Law: An Introduction, in: Dann, Philipp/Riegner, Michael/Bönnemann, Maxim (Hg.), The Global South and Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford 2020, S. 1–38. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  227. Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun, Comparing constitutional democracy in the European Union and India: an Introduction, in: Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun (Hg.), Democratic Constitutionalism in India and the European Union: Comparing the Law of Democracy in Continental Polities, Cheltenham u.a. 2021, S. 1–41. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  228. –, Federlism and democracy, in: Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun (Hg.), Democratic Constitutionalism in India and the European Union: Comparing the Law of Democracy in Continental Polities, Cheltenham u.a. 2021, S. 252–285. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  229. Darian-Smith, Eve, Postcolonial Theories of Law, in: Banakar, Reza/Travers, Max (Hg.), Law and Social Theory, 2. Aufl., Oxford u.a. 2013, S. 247–264. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  230. Davies, Kirsten/Adelman, Sam/Grear, Anna/u.a., The Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change: A New Legal Tool for Global Policy Change, 8 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 217–253 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  231. Davis, Kenneth C., Standing to Challenge Governmental Action, 39 Minnesota Law Review 353–430 (1955). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  232. Davis, Seth, The New Public Standing, 71 Stanford Law Review 1229–1304 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  233. De, Rohit, Constitutional Antecedents, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 17–37. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  234. de Sadeleer, Nicolas, The principle of prevention and precaution in international law: to heads of the same coin?, in: Fitzmaurice, Malgosia/Ong, David M./Merkouris, Panos (Hg.), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Cheltenham u.a. 2010, S. 182–199. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  235. Dembowski, Hans/Dicke, Vera, Justiz, Zivilgesellschaft und die öffentliche Sphäre: Umweltprozesse in Kalkutta, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 2011, S. 221–242. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  236. Dernbach, John C., The Potential Meanings of a Constitutional Public Trust, 45 Environmental Law 463–518 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  237. Dernbach, John C./Altenburg, Robert, Evolution of U.S. Climate Policy, in: Gerrard, Michael B./Freeman, Jody (Hg.), Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 2. Aufl., Chicago 2014, S. 83–116. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  238. Deutscher Bundestag, Wissenschaftliche Dienste, Rechtliche Grundlagen und Möglichkeiten für Klima-Klagen gegen Staat und Unternehmen in Deutschland, WD 7 - 3000 - 116/16, Berlin 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  239. Deva, Surya, Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review, 28 Civil Justice Quarterly 19–40 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  240. –, Savings Clauses: The Ninth Schedule and Articles 31A-C, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 627–643. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  241. Deveney, Patrick, Title, Jus Publicum, and the Public Trust: A Historical Analysis, 1 Sea Grant Law Journal 13–81 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  242. Dhavan, Rajeev, The Constitution as the Situs of Struggle: India’s Constitution Fourty Years on, in: Beer, Lawrence Ward (Hg.), Constitutional systems in late twentieth century Asia, Seattle 1992, S. 373–461. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  243. Dias, Ayesha, Judicial Activism in the Development of Environmental Law: Some Comparative Insights from the Indian Experience, 6 Journal of Environmental Law 243–262 (1994). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  244. Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 8. Aufl., London 1915. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  245. Divan, Shyam, Public Interest Litigation, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 663–679. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  246. Dixon, Rosalind/Chowdhury, Rishad, A Case for Qualified Hope?: The Supreme Court of India and the Midday Meal Decision, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 243–268. Zitiert als: A Qualified Hope. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  247. Dohrmann, Jona Aravind, Directive Principles of State Policy in der indischen Verfassung unter Berücksichtigung der Staatszielbestimmungen des deutschen Grundgesetzes (Diss. Heidelberg), Würzburg 2002. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  248. Dohrmann, Jona Aravind/Fischer, Alexander, Public Interest Litigation in Indien, in: Draguhn, Werner (Hg.), Indien 2001: Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Hamburg 2001, S. 145–168. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  249. Dripps, Donald A., Due Process: A Unified Understanding, in: Orren, Karen/Compton, John W. (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution, Cambridge 2018, S. 45–71. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  250. Dröge, Susanne/Wagner, Christian, India’s Position in International Climate Change Negotiations: No Shift under Modi, SWP Comments, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin 2015, https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2015C14_dge_wgn.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  251. Dubash, Navroz K. (Hg.), India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development, New Delhi 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  252. –, An Introduction to India’s Evolving Climate Change Debate: From Diplomatic Insulation to Policy Integration, in: Dubash, Navroz K. (Hg.), India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development, 2019, S. 1–28. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  253. Dubash, Navroz K./Ghosh, Shibani, National Climate Change Policies and Institutions, in: Dubash, Navroz K. (Hg.), India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development, New Delhi 2019, S. 329–348. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  254. Dubinsky, Paul R., International Law in the Legal System of the United States, 58 American Journal of Comparative Law Supplement 455–478 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  255. Dupuy, Pierre-Marie/Le Moli, Ginevra/Viñuales, Jorge E., Customary International Law and the Environment, in: Rajamani, Lavanya/Peel, Jacqueline (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2. Aufl., Oxford 2021, S. 385–401. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  256. Dutta, Ritwick, The Unquiet River: An Overview of Selected Decisions of the Courts on the River Yamuna, PEACE Institute Charitable Trust, Delhi 2009, https://indiariversforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/the-unquiet-river.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  257. Duvic-Paoli, Leslie-Anne, Prevention in International Environmental Law and the Anticipation of Risk(s): A Multifaceted Norm, in: Ambrus, Mónika/Rayfuse, Rosemary/Werner, Wouter (Hg.), Risk and the Regulation of Uncertainty in International Law, Oxford 2017, S. 141–159. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  258. Eagle, Josh, Coastal Law, New York 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  259. Eckstein, David/Hutfils, Marie-Lena/Winges, Maik, Global Climate Risk Index 2019, Germanwatch e.V., Berlin 2018, https://www.germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Climate%20Risk%20Index%202019_2.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  260. Ehlers, Dirk, Die Klagebefugnis nach deutschem, europäischem Gemeinschafts- und U.S.-amerikanischem Recht, Verwaltungs-Archiv 1993, S. 139–177. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  261. Eifert, Martin, Verfassungsauftrag zum freiheitsschonenden Klimaschutz: Der Klimaschutz-Beschluss des BVerfG, Juristische Ausbildung 2021, S. 1085–1098. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  262. Ekardt, Felix, Menschenrechte und Umweltschutz: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Klimawandels und der Sustainable Development Goals, Leipzig u.a. 2015, http://felix-ekardt.eu/files/texts/DIMR-Studie.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  263. –, Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit: ethische, rechtliche, politische und transformative Zugänge – am Beispiel von Klimawandel, Ressourcenknappheit und Welthandel (Habil. Rostock), 2. Aufl., Baden-Baden 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  264. Elison, Larry M./Snyder, Fritz, The Montana State Constitution, Westport 2001. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  265. Elliott, Heather, The Functions of Standing, 61 Stanford Law Review 459–517 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  266. Elshorst, David, Bürgervollzugsklagen: Die Durchsetzung von Umweltrecht gegenüber Anlagenbetreibern durch Private in den USA und Deutschland (Diss. Bayreuth), Berlin 2002. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  267. Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review, Cambridge 1980. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  268. Endicott, Timothy, The Coxford Lecture: Arbitrariness, 27 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 49–72 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  269. European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard: COM (2017) 167 final, Brüssel 2017. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  270. Ewing, Keith, Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty, 80 Modern Law Review 711–726 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  271. Fallon, Richard H., The Dynamic Constitution: An Introduction to American Constitutional Law and Practice, 2. Aufl., Cambridge u.a. 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  272. –, How to Make Sense of the Supreme Court Standing Cases – A Plea for the Right Kind of Realism, 23 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 105–126 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  273. Farber, Daniel A., Climate change litigation in the United States, in: Kahl, Wolfgang/Weller, Marc-Philippe (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook, München u.a. 2021, S. 237–253. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  274. Fata, Elizabeth, Actions and Reactions: The Evolution of Environmental Common Law and Judicial Activism in India and the United States, 23 University of Miami International & Comparative Law Review 215–255 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  275. Faure, Michael G./Nollkaemper, André, International Liability as an Instrument to Prevent and Compensate for Climate Change, 43 Stanford Journal of International Law 123–179 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  276. Faure, Michael G./Peeters, Marjan (Hg.), Climate Change Liability, Cheltenham u.a. 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  277. Fellenberg, Frank, Rechtsschutz als Instrument des Klimaschutzes – ein Zwischenstand, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2022, S. 913–920. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  278. Fischer, Alexander, The Judicialisation of Politics in India: Origins and Consequences of the Power of the Indian Supreme Court (Diss. Heidelberg), Heidelberg 2020, http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/25364 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  279. Fisher, Louis, Bush v. Gore: Too Political?, in: Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada/Cain, Bruce E. (Hg.), The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States, Lanham u.a. 2007, S. 199–218. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  280. Fletcher, William A., The Structure of Standing, 98 Yale Law Journal 221–292 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  281. Frank, Richard M., The Public Trust Doctrine: Assessing Its Recent Past & Charting Its Future, 45 University of California Davis Law Review 665–691 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  282. Frank, Will, Climate Change Litigation – Klimawandel und haftungsrechtliche Risiken: Erwiderung auf Chatzinerantzis/Herz (NJOZ 2010, 594 = NJW 2010, 910), Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift 2010, S. 2296–2300. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  283. –, Staatliche Klimaschutzpflichten – „Soft Law“, „Due Diligence“ und „Untermaßverbot“, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2016, S. 1599–1600. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  284. –, Störerhaftung für Klimaschäden?, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2017, S. 664–669. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  285. Frankenberg, Gunter, Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law, 26 Harvard International Law Journal 411–456 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  286. –, Stranger than Paradise: Identity & Politics in Comparative Law, Utah Law Review 259-274 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  287. Freer, Richard D., Introduction to Civil Procedure, New York 2005. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  288. Friedman, Barry, The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part One: The Road to Judicial Supremacy, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 333–433 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  289. Friedman, Lawrence M., A History of American Law, 4. Aufl., New York 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  290. Friedrich, Lutz, Gemeinwohl vor Gericht: Chancen und Risiken öffentlich-rechtlicher „Public Interest Litigation“, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 2021, S. 726–735. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  291. Funk, Kellen, The Union of Law and Equity: The United States, 1800–1938, in: Goldberg, John C. P./Smith, Henry E./Turner, P. G. (Hg.), Equity and Law: Fusion and Fission, Cambridge 2019, S. 46–69. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  292. Gadbois, Jr., George H., Judges of the Supreme Court of India: 1950–1989, Cambridge 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  293. Gafoor, K. A. Abdul, Human Rights: Right to Life, 1 Rajagiri Journal of Social Development 45–60 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  294. Galanter, Marc/Ram, Vasujith, Suo Motu Intervention and the Indian Judiciary, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 92–122. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  295. Ganguli, Amal K., Interference between International Law and Municipal Law: Role of the Indian Judiciary, in: Patel, Bimal N. (Hg.), India and International Law, 2. Bd., Leiden u.a. 2008, S. 11–47. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  296. –, Recovering Lost Ground: The Case of the Curious Eighties, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 31–44. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  297. Gardbaum, Stephen, The Myth and the Reality of American Constitutional Exceptionalism, 107 Michigan Law Review 391–466 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  298. –, Horizontal Effects, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 600–613. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  299. Garner, Bryan A. (Hg.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 11. Aufl., St. Paul 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  300. Gauri, Varun, Public Interest Litigation in India: Overreaching or Underachieving?, Policy Research Working Paper, Washington, D.C. 2009, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/675001468042007347/pdf/WPS5109.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  301. Gautam, Khagesh, The Use of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation in the Supreme Court of India, 55 Stanford Journal of International Law 27–68 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  302. Gerrard, Michael B./Freeman, Jody (Hg.), Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 2. Aufl., Chicago 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  303. Gesellschaft für Umweltrecht (Hg.), Dokumentation zur 44. Wissenschaftlichen Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Umweltrecht e.V.: Leipzig 2021, Berlin 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  304. Gettleman, Jeffrey/Kumar, Hari, „Modi Founds Temple on Mosque’s Ruins, in Triumphal Moment for Hindu Base“, in: New York Times, 05.08.2020, updated on 11.05.2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/world/asia/modi-temple-ayodhya.html (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  305. Ghosh, Shibani, Introduction, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 1–17. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  306. –, Procedural Environmental Rights in Indian Law, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 55–103. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  307. –, Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Law, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 230–270. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  308. –, Litigating Climate Change in India, 114 AJIL Unbound 45–50 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  309. –, Climate Litigation in India, in: Sindico, Francesco/Mbengue, Makane Moïse (Hg.), Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects, Cham 2021, S. 347–367. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  310. Gill, Gitanjali Nain, Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal and Expert Members, 5 Transnational Environmental Law 175–205 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  311. –, Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal, Abingdon u.a. 2017. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  312. Glicksman, Robert L./Markell, David L./Buzbee, William W./u.a., Environmental Protection: Law and Policy, 8. Aufl., New York 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  313. Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Atlas, www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  314. Gonzalez, Carmen G., Human rights, environmental justice, and the North-South divide, in: Grear, Anna/Kotzé, Louis J. (Hg.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and the Environment, Cheltenham u.a. 2015, S. 449-472. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  315. Gopalakrishnan, Shankar, Access to and control over forest resources – the case of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in India, in: Cullet, Philippe/Koonan, Sujith (Hg.), Research Handbook on Law, Environment and the Global South, Cheltenham 2019, S. 249–270. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  316. Gradoni, Lorenzo/Mantovani, Marina, Youth-Led Climate Change Litigation: Crossing the North-South Divide, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2023, S. 274–298. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  317. Graser, Alexander, Strategic Litigation: Ein Verstehensversuch, in: (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019, S. 37–41. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  318. –, Vermeintliche Fesseln der Demokratie: Warum die Klimaklagen ein vielversprechender Weg sind: Eine Replik auf Bernhard Wegener, Urgenda - Weltrettung per Gerichtsbeschluss? Klimaklagen testen die Grenzen des Rechtsschutzes, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 271–278. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  319. Graser, Alexander/Helmrich, Christian (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  320. Green, David S., Massachusetts v. EPA Without Massachusetts: Private Party Standing in Climate Change Litigation, 36 University of California 35–63 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  321. Greenbaum, Roger A./Peterson, Anne S., The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Citizen Suits and How They Work, 2 Fordham Environmental Law Report 79–124 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  322. Grey, Thomas C., The Constitution as Scripture, 37 Standford Law Review 1–26 (1984–1985). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  323. Groß, Thomas, „Zwei Jahre Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts“, in: Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/zwei-jahre-klimabeschluss-des-bundesverfassungsgerichts (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  324. Grove, Tara Leigh, When Can a State Sue the United States?, 101 Cornell Law Review 851–899 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  325. Gupta, Balram K., Judicial Review: A Tool to Shape Constitutional Jurisprudence, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 127–144. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  326. Gupta, Milati, „Is The Global Reputation Of India’s Supreme Court In Decline?“, in: Article 14, https://www.article-14.com/post/is-the-global-reputation-of-india-s-supreme-court-in-decline (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  327. Gupta, Subhash Chandra, Supreme Court of India: An Instrument of Socio-Legal Advancement, New Delhi 1995. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  328. Guruswamy, Maneka/Aspatwar, Bipin, Access to Justice in India: The Jurisprudence (and Self-Perception) of the Supreme Court, in: Bonilla Maldonado, Daniel (Hg.), Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Activist Tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia, Cambridge 2013, S. 329–360. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  329. Gyte, Laura/Barrera, Violeta/Singer, Lucy, The Story of Our Lives: Narrative Change Strategies in Climate Litigation, in: Rodríguez-Garavito, César (Hg.), Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action, Cambridge 2022, S. 289–301. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  330. Hahn, Lisa, Strategische Prozessführung: Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsklärung, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 2019, S. 5–32. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  331. Hall, Caleb, A Right Most Dear: The Case for a Constitutional Environmental Right, 30 Tulane Environmental Law Journal 85–110 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  332. Hall, Kermit L. (Hg.), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2. Aufl., Oxford 2005. Zitiert als: Oxford Companion U.S. Supreme Court. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  333. Hamilton, Alexander, 78: The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution, in: Hamilton, Alexander/Madison, James/Jay, John (Hg.), The Federalist, Cambridge 2009, S. 508–517. Zitiert als: No. 78. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  334. Hammersley, Mia, The Right to a Healthy and Stable Climate: Fundamental or Unfounded?, 7 Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 117–145 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  335. Hasen, Richard L., Leaving the Empty Vessel of “Republicanism” Unfilled: An Argument for the Continued Nonjusticiability of Guarantee Clause Cases, in: Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada/Cain, Bruce E. (Hg.), The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States, Lanham u.a. 2007, S. 75–88. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  336. Hause, Malcolm E., India and the Commonwealth of Nations: A Study in Contemporary Political Thought, 23 Indian Journal of Political Sciences 225–239 (1962). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  337. Hay, Peter, US-Amerikanisches Recht, 7. Aufl., München 2020. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  338. Hegde, V. G., Indian Courts and International Law, 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 53–77 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  339. Helmrich, Christian, Ausblick: Strategic Litigation rund um die Welt, in: Graser, Alexander/Helmrich, Christian (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019, S. 115–140. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  340. Henkin, Louis, Is There a Political Question Doctrine?, 85 Yale Law Journal 597–625 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  341. Holmstead, Jeff/Penry, Kathrin, Climate Change and Environmental Law, in: Sullivan, Thomas F. P. (Hg.), Environmental Law Handbook, 24. Aufl., Lanham u.a. 2019, S. 741–790. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  342. Holt, James Clarke, Magna Charta, 3. Aufl., Cambridge 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  343. Huffman, James L., Speaking of Inconvenient Truths–A History of the Public Trust Doctrine, 18 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 1–104 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  344. –, Protecting the Great Lakes: The Allure and Limitations of the Public Trust Doctrine, 93 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 239–272 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  345. –, The Public Trust Doctrine: A Brief (and True) History, 10 George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law 15–32 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  346. Humphreys, Stephen (Hg.), Human Rights and Climate Change, Cambridge u.a. 2010. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  347. Hunter, David B., An Ecological Perspective on Property: A Call for Judicial Protection on the Public’s Inerest in Environmentally Critical Resources, 12 Harvard Environmental Law Review 311–384 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  348. Hunter, David B./Salzman, James, Negligence in the Air: The Duty of Care in Climate Change Litigation, 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1741–1794 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  349. Ick-June, Yoon, Environmental Justice and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2 Yonsei Law Journal 51–63 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  350. IndianKanoon.org, IndianKanoon, https://indiankanoon.org (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  351. Iyengar, Shalini, Human rights and climate wrongs: Mapping the landscape of rights-based climate litigation, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 2024, S. 299–309. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  352. Iyer, Ramaswamy R., Linking of Rivers: Judicial Activism or Error?, 37 Economic & Political Weekly 4595–4596 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  353. Jackson, Vicki C., Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality, 124 Yale Law Journal 3094–3197 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  354. –, US Constitutional Law and History, in: Mastermann, Roger/Schütze, Robert (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Constitutional Law, Cambridge u.a. 2019, S. 113–140. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  355. Jaffe, Jill, The Political Question Doctrine: An Update in Response to Recent Case Law, 38 Ecology Law Quarterly 1033–1066 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  356. Jaffe, Louis J., Standing to Secure Judicial Review: Private Actions, 75 Harvard Law Review 255–305 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  357. –, Standing to Secure Judicial Review: Public Actions, 74 Harvard Law Review 1265–1314 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  358. Jain, M. P./Jain, S. N./Singh, Guru Prasanna/Aradhe, Alok, Principles of Administrative Law, 5. Aufl., New Delhi u.a. 2007. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  359. Jaitley, Arun, The Judicial Collegium: Issues, Controversies, and the Road Ahead, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 45–55. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  360. James, Kevin, „A Year After Four SC Judges’ Press Conference, Is Democracy Still in Danger?“, in: The Wire, 12.01.2019, https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-judges-press-conference-one-year (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  361. Jansing, Jonas, Verwaltungsrechtsschutz durch tribunals in England: Die Umgestaltung der “administrative justice landscape” durch den Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 c.15, Osnabrück 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  362. Jaswal, Paramjit S., Directive Principles Jurisprudence and Socio-Economic Justice in India, New Delhi 1996. Zitiert als: Directive Principles Jurisprudence. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  363. Junker, Kirk W., Legal Culture in the United States: An Introduction, Abingdon u.a. 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  364. Kagan, Robert A., Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, 2. Aufl., Cambridge u.a. 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  365. Kahl, Wolfgang/Weller, Marc-Philippe (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook, München u.a. 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  366. Kalantry, Sital/Nandi, Arindam, Evaluating the Impact of the Indian Supreme Court Judgment on Sex-Selective Abortion, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 319–344. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  367. Kaleck, Wolfgang, Mit Recht gegen die Macht: Unser Kampf für die Menschenrechte, Berlin 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  368. Kaplin, William A., American Constitutional Law: An Overview, Analysis, and Integration, Durham 2004. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  369. Katyal, Neil Kumar, Trump v. Hawaii: How the Supreme Court Simultaneously Overturned and Revived Korematsu, 128 Yale Law Journal Forum 641–656 (2018-2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  370. Kavuri, Sudha/Ramanathan, Anjana, Climate Change Litigation: Chronicals from the Global South – A Comparative Study, 28 Comparative Law Review 169–199 (2022). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  371. Keller, Arite/Theurer, Karina, Menschenrechte mit rechtlichen Mitteln durchsetzen: Die Arbeit des ECCHR, in: Graser, Alexander/Helmrich, Christian (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019, S. 53–63. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  372. Kelly, Carolyn, Where the Water Meets the Sky: How an Unbroken Line of Precedent from Justinian to Juliana Supports the Possibility of a Federal Atmospheric Public Trust Doctrine, 27 New York University Environmental Law Journal 183–239 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  373. Kerstensteiner, Nina, Tiere vor Gericht? Strukturelles Durchsetzungsdefizit im Tierschutzrecht und die Rolle der strategischen Prozessführung (Diss. Regensburg), Tübingen 2024. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  374. Kessler, Amalia D., Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800–1877, New Haven u.a. 2017. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  375. Khan, Sheeraz Latif A., Justice Bhagwati on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, New Delhi 1996. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  376. Khurshid, Salman, Constitutional Morality and Judges of the Supreme Court, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 384–410. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  377. Kischel, Uwe, Comparative Law, Oxford 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  378. Klass, Alexandra B., Modern Public Trust Principles: Recognizing Rights and Integrating Standards, 82 Notre Dame Law Review 699–754 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  379. Kloepfer, Michael/Neugärtner, Rico David, Liability for climate change, sustainability and environmental justice, in: Kahl, Wolfgang/Weller, Marc-Philippe (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook, München u.a. 2021, S. 21–44. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  380. Kloepfer, Michael/Wiedmann, Jan-Louis, Die Entscheidung des BVerfG zum Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2021, S. 1333–1340. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  381. Knox, John H./Voigt, Christina, Introduction to the Symposium on Jacqueline Peel & Jolene Lin, “Transnational Climate Litigation: The Contribution of the Global South”, 114 AJIL Unbound 35–39 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  382. Knütel, Rolf/Kupisch, Berthold/Lohsse, Sebastian/Rüfner, Thomas (Hg.), Corpus Iuris Civilis: Die Institutionen, 4. Aufl., Heidelberg u.a. 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  383. Kodiveri, Arpitha, Climate Change Litigation in India: Its Potential and Challenges, in: Rodríguez-Garavito, César (Hg.), Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action, Cambridge 2022, S. 364–375. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  384. Kolsky, Elizabeth, Colonial Justice in British India, Cambridge 2010. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  385. Kramer, Larry D., Putting the Politics Back into the Political Safeguards of Federalism, 100 Columbia Law Review 215–293 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  386. Krishnan, R. Hari/Bhaskar, Anurag, Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: On the Thin Line between Judicial Activism and Restraint, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 341–364. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  387. Krishnan, R./Sanjay, J./Gnanaseelan, Chellappan/u.a., Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian Region: A Report of the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India, Singapore 2020. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  388. Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights and State Action in India, in: Kumar, C. Raj/Chockalingam, K. (Hg.), Human Rights, Justice, and Constitutional Empowerment, New Delhi 2007, S. 47–73. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  389. –, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine, New Delhi 2009. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  390. Krotoszynski, Ronald J., Fundamental Property Rights, 85 Georgetown Law Journal 555–625 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  391. Kulke, Hermann/Rothermund, Dietmar, A History of India, 6. Aufl., London 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  392. Kumar, Parul/Naik, Abhayraj, India’s Domestic Climate Policy is Fragmented and Lacks Clarity, 54 (Issue 7) Economic & Political Weekly (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  393. –, „India’s New Constitutional Climate Right: Examining the Significance of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others for Climate Litigation in India“, in: Verfassungsblog, 25.04.2024, https://verfassungsblog.de/indias-new-constitutional-climate-right (Stand: 03.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  394. Kumar, Shailendra, Sketching the Limits of Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Constitutional Necessity, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 365–383. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  395. Lagarre, Santiago, The Historical Background of the Police Power, 9 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 745–796 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  396. Lange, Frederike Valerie, Grundrechtsbindung des Gesetzgebers: eine rechtsvergleichende Studie zu Deutschland, Frankreich und den USA (Diss. Würzburg), Tübingen 2010. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  397. LaTourette, Shawn M., Global Climate Change: A Political Question, 40 Rutgers Law Journal 219–284 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  398. Law Commission of India, Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower: Report No. 245, in: Government of India (Hg.), New Delhi 2014, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195637335 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  399. Lawrence, Peter, Justice for Future Generations: Climate Change and International Law, Cheltenham u.a. 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  400. Lazarus, Richard J., Changing Conceptions of Property and Sovereignty in Natural Resources: Questioning the Public Trust Doctrine, 71 Iowa Law Review 631–716 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  401. –, Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future, 94 Cornell Law Review 1153-1233 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  402. –, Judicial Missteps, Legislative Dysfunction, and the Public Trust Doctrine: Can Two Wrongs Make It Right, 45 Environmental Law 1139–1162 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  403. Ledewitz, Bruce, Establishing a Federal Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment in Us and in Our Posterity, 68 Mississippi Law Journal 565–673 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  404. Lerche, Peter, Stil und Methode der verfassungsrechtlichen Entscheidungspraxis, in: Badura, Peter/Dreier, Horst (Hg.), Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht, 1. Bd., Tübingen 2001, S. 333–348. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  405. Levinson, Rosalie Berger, Time to Bury the Shocks-the-Conscience Test, 13 Chapman Law Review 307–356 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  406. Lin, Jolene/Kysar, Douglas A. (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation in the Asia Pacific, Cambridge 2020. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  407. Lin, Jolene/Peel, Jacqueline, Litigating Climate Change in the Global South, Oxford 2024. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  408. Long, Andrew, Standing and Consensus: Globalism in Massachusetts v. EPA, 23 Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 73–123 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  409. Lord, Richard/Goldberg, Silke/Rajamani, Lavanya/Brunnée, Jutta (Hg.), Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice, Cambridge u.a. 2012. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  410. Lowe, Vaughn, Sustainable Development and Unsustainable Arguments, in: Boyle, Alan E./Freestone, David (Hg.), International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Challenges, Oxford 1999, S. 19–37. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  411. Lübke, Christiane, „Einstellungen zu Klimaschutzmaßnahmen und persönliche Handlungsbereitschaft“, in: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Hg.), Sozialbericht 2024, https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/sozialbericht-2024/553429/einstellungen-zu-klimaschutzmassnahmen-und-persoenliche-handlungsbereitschaft (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  412. Lulz, Smarika/Riegner, Michael, Freedom of expression and hate speech, in: Dann, Philipp/Thiruvengadam, Arun (Hg.), Democratic Constitutionalism in India and the European Union: Comparing the Law of Democracy in Continental Polities, Cheltenham u.a. 2021, S. 191–222. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  413. Luthra, Sidharth/Mukhija, Nivedita, The Need for Reinventing the Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 225–235. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  414. MacGrady, Glenn J., The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water, Florida State University Law Review 511–615 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  415. Magill, Elisabeth, Standing for the Public, 95 Virginia Law Review 1131–1200 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  416. Malik, Lokendra, Appointment of ‘Distinguished Jurists’ as Judges in the Supreme Court of India: A Critical Analysis, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 236–251. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  417. Mank, Bradford, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 William & Mary Law Review 1701–1788 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  418. Mank, Bradford C., Judge Posner’s Practical Theory of Standing: Closer to Justice Breyer’s Approach to Standing than to Justice Scalia’s, 50 Houston Law Review 71–130 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  419. –, Does the Evolving Concept of Due Process in Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change?: Juliana v. United States, 52 University of California Davis Law Review 855–903 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  420. Manus, Peter, Justice Scalia’s Environmental Legacy: A Contextual Analysis, 35 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 265–320 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  421. Marauhn, Thilo, General Principles and Fragmentation of International Environmental Law, in: Hebeler, Timo/Hofmann, Ekkehard/Proeßl, Alexander/Reiff, Peter (Hg.), Protecting the Environment for Future Generations — Principles and Actors in International Environmental Law: International Symposium on Environmental and Technology Law, 29–30 October 2015, Berlin 2017, S. 79–88. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  422. Martel, Jonathan/Jaros, Christopher/Fayne, Zachary/Sahay, Shailesh, Clean Air Regulation, in: Gerrard, Michael B./Freeman, Jody (Hg.), Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 2. Aufl., Chicago 2014, S. 117–152. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  423. Masing, Johannes, Die Mobilisierung des Bürgers für die Durchsetzung des Rechts: Europäische Impulse für eine Revision der Lehre vom subjektiv-öffentlichen Recht (Diss. Freiburg), Berlin 1997. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  424. Mate, Manoj, The Rise of Judicial Governance in the Supreme Court of India, 33 Boston University International Law Journal 169–222 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  425. May, James R., Climate Change, Constitutional Consignment, and the Political Question Doctrine, 85 Denver University Law Review 919–959 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  426. –, The Political Question Doctrine, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 217–241. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  427. - (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  428. –, Making sense of environmental human rights and global environmental constitutionalism, in: Techera, Erika J./Lindley, Jade/Scott, Karen N./Telesetsky, Anastasia (Hg.), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2. Aufl., Abingdon u.a. 2021, S. 73–86. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  429. May, James R./Daly, Erin, Global Environmental Constitutionalism, New York 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  430. May, James R./Romanovicz, William, Environmental Rights in State Constitutions, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 305–327. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  431. Mayroth, Natalie/Schwarz, Susanne, „Indiens komplizierte CO2-Reduktionsziele: Zwischen Armut und Klimakrise“, in: taz (Online), 09.08.2022, https://taz.de/Indiens-komplizierte-CO2-Reduktionsziele/!5870272 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  432. Mazoomdaar, Jay, „Explained: Reading the draft Environment Impact Assessment norms, and finding the red flags“, in: The Indian Express (Online), 28.07.2020, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/draft-environment-impact-assessment-norms-explained-6482324 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  433. Mechler, Reinhard/Bouwer, Laurens M./Schinko, Thomas/u.a. (Hg.), Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options, Cham 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  434. Meena, Kriti/Pawar, Sandli, „India’s Tribunals Reforms Act: A Challenge to the Separation of Powers“, in: Jurist.org, 23.09.2021, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/09/meena-pawar-tribunals-reforms-act (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  435. Mehta, Dhvani, The Environmental Rule of Law in India (Diss. Oxford), Oxford 2017. Zitiert als: Environmental Rule of Law. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  436. –, The Judicial Implementation of Environmental Law in India, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 271–322. Zitiert als: Judicial Implementation. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  437. Mehta, Pratab Bhanu, A Plague on Both Your Houses: NJAC and the Crisis of Trust, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 56–70. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  438. Meßerschmidt, Klaus, Der Beitrag des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Konstitutionalisierung des Umwelt- und Klimaschutzrechts, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2023, S. 1109–1119. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  439. Meyer, Stephan, Grundrechtsschutz in Sachen Klimawandel, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2020, S. 894–900. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  440. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, „Cabinet approves India’s Updated Nationally Determined Contribution to be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change“, Pressemitteilung, 03.08.2022, New Delhi, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1847813 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  441. –, „India’s Stand at COP-26“, Pressemitteilung, 03.02.2022, New Delhi, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1795071 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  442. Ministry of the Environment, Forest and Climate Change, India: Second Biennial Updated Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi 2018. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  443. Minow, Martha, The Controversial Status of International and Comparative Law in the United States, in: Andenas, Mads/Fairgrieve, Duncan (Hg.), Courts and Comparative Law, Oxford 2015, S. 513–535. Zitiert als: Controversial Status. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  444. Mitra, Subrata, The dialectic of politics and law and the resilience of India’s post-colonial governance: Ultima ratio regum?, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2012, S. 131–156. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  445. Möllers, Christoph/Weinberg, Nils, Die Klimaschutzentscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, JuristenZeitung 2021, S. 1069–1087. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  446. Molodanof, Olivia/Durney, Jessica, Hope is a Song in a Weary Throat: An Interview with Julia Olson, 24 Hastings Environmental Law Journal 213–226 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  447. Moog, Robert, Implementation in the Delhi Pollution Case: Lessons for the Future, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 269–292. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  448. Mukhopadhyay, Nilanjan, „Why SC’s ‘collective verdict’ on Babri Masjid is a worrying sign — for judiciary and India“, in: ThePrint.in, 14.12.2021, https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/why-scs-collective-verdict-on-babri-masjid-is-a-worrying-sign-for-judiciary-and-india/780766 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  449. Murphy, Richard, Abandoning Standing: Trading a Rule of Access for a Rule of Deference, 60 Administrative Law Review 943–993 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  450. Murphy, Walter F./Fleming, James E./Barber, Sotirios A./Macedo, Stephan, American Constitutional Interpretation, 6. Aufl., St. Paul 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  451. Myers, Bruce/Austin, Jay, The Commerce Clause: Foundations for U.S. Environmental Law, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 37–72. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  452. Nagdeman, David A., Sovereign Ephemera: State Standing against the Federal Government for Injuries to Quasi-Sovereign Interests, Temple Law Review 53–95 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  453. Narain, Vrinda, Postcolonial Constitutionalism in India: Complexities & Contradictions, 25 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 107–133 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  454. National Informatics Centre, Government of India, States and Union Territories, https://knowindia.gov.in/states-uts (Stand: 30.03.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  455. –, E-Courts Services: High Courts of India, District and Taluka Courts of India, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, https://ecourts.gov.in (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  456. Nichol, Gene R., Justice Scalia, Standing, and Public Interest Litigation, 42 Duke Law Journal 1141–1169 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  457. Noorani, A. G., „Behind the ‘basic structure’ doctrine“, in: Frontline, 28.04.2001, https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/article30159673.ece (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  458. Nosek, Grace, Climate Change Litigation and Narrative: How to Use Litigation to Tell Compelling Climate Stories, 42 William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 733–803 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  459. Nowak, John E./Rotunda, Ronald D., Constitutional Law, 6. Aufl., St. Paul 2000. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  460. O’Loughlin, Michael, Understanding the Public Trust Doctrine through Due Process, 58 Boston College Law Review 1321–1354 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  461. Oakes, Anne Richardson, Judicial Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine: A Powerful Tool of Environmental Protection?, 7 Transnational Environmental Law 469–489 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  462. Office of the Law Revision Council, United States Code, U.S. House of Representatives, https://uscode.house.gov/browse.xhtml (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  463. OLG Hamm, „Beweisaufnahme in Peru im Rechtsstreit Lliuya ./. RWE“, Pressemitteilung, 17.06.2022, Hamm, https://www.olg-hamm.nrw.de/behoerde/presse/Pressemitteilungen/zt-Archiv/2022_Pressearchiv/19_22_PE_Beweisaufnahme-in-Peru-im-Rechtsstreit-Lliuya-___-RWE/index.php (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  464. Osofsky, Hari M., The Geography of Emerging Global South Climate Change Litigation, 114 AJIL Unbound 61–66 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  465. Osofsky, Hari M./Peel, Jacqueline, The role of litigation in multilevel climate change governance: Possibilities for a lower carbon future?, 30 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 303–328 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  466. Our Children’s Trust, „Settlement Talks End Without Resolution in Juliana v. U.S. Climate Case; Youth Plaintiffs Await Ruling from Federal District Court“, Pressemitteilung, 01.11.2021, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/6181ba9912336b4fc5c01345/1635891865535/2021.11.01.Juliana+v+US+Settlement+Ends.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  467. –, Youth v. Gov, https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  468. Owens, Ryan J./Sieja, James, Agenda-Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court, in: Epstein, Lee/Lindquist, Stefanie A. (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior, Oxford 2017, S. 169–185. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  469. Pacelle, Richard L., Jr., The Supreme Court in a Separation of Powers System: The Nation’s Balance Wheel, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  470. Padmanabhan, Ananth, Rights: Breadth, Scope and Applicability, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 581–599. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  471. Papier, Hans-Jürgen, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht als Anreger und Hüter der Verfassungsentwicklung, in: Herzog, Felix/Neumann, Ulfrid (Hg.), Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer, 2010, S. 185–198. Zitiert als: FS Hassemer. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  472. Parekh, Bhikhu, The Constitution as a Statement of Indian Identity, in: Bhargava, Rajeev (Hg.), Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution, New Delhi 2008, S. 43–58. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  473. Patel, Bimal N., The State Practice of India and the Development of International Law: Dynamic Interplay between Foreign Policy and Jurisprudence, Leiden 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  474. Peel, Jacqueline, Precaution, in: Rajamani, Lavanya/Peel, Jacqueline (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2. Aufl., Oxford 2021, S. 302–334. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  475. Peel, Jacqueline/Lin, Jolene, Transnational Climate Litigation: The Contribution of the Global South, 113 American Journal of International Law 679–726 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  476. Peel, Jacqueline/Osofsky, Hari M., Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy, Cambridge u.a. 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  477. Pfander, James E., Scalia’s Legacy: Originalism and Change in the Law of Standing, 6 British Journal of American Legal Studies 85–107 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  478. –, Suits against Officeholders, in: Orren, Karen/Compton, John W. (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution, Cambridge u.a. 2018, S. 360–386. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  479. Pichl, Maximilian, Die Verrechtlichung der Welt: Ansätze einer postkolonialen Rechtstheorie, Kritische Justiz 2012, S. 131–143. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  480. Pillay, Anashri, The Constitution of the Republic of India, in: Mastermann, Roger/Schütze, Robert (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Constitutional Law, Cambridge u.a. 2019, S. 141–170. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  481. Pluchon, Emeline, Leading from the Bench: The Role of Judges in Advancing Climate Justice and Lessons from South Asia, in: Jafry, Tahseen/Mikulewicz, Michael/Helwig, Karin (Hg.), Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice, London 2018, S. 139–149. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  482. Pöttker, Erik, Klimahaftungsrecht: Die Haftung für die Emissionen von Treibhausgasen in Deutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (Diss. Potsdam), Tübingen 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  483. Prasad, Lal Bahadur, Indian Political System and Law, New Delhi 2005. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  484. Prashant, Shishir, „Uttarakhand, UP agree to set up Ganga mgmt board“, in: Business Standard (Online), 20.01.2013, New Delhi, https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/uttarakhand-up-agree-to-set-up-ganga-mgmt-board-111081200060_1.html (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  485. Press Trust of India (PTI), „Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Activist Gautam Navlakha’s Bail Plea“, in: NDTV, 12.05.2021, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bhima-koregaon-case-supreme-court-dismisses-activist-gautam-navlakhas-bail-plea-2440549 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  486. Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, National Action Plan on Climate Change, Government of India, 2008, https://archivepmo.nic.in/drmanmohansingh/climate_change_english.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Zitiert als: NAPCC. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  487. Puneeth, P., Judicial Review of Legislation by Tribunals in India: Law, Problems, and Perspectives, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 293–314. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  488. Puvimanasinghe, Shyami, The Role of Public Interest Litigation in Realizing Environmental Justice in South Asia: Selected Cases as Guidance in Implementing Agenda 2030, in: Atapattu, Sumudu/Gonzalez, Carmen G./Seck, Sara L. (Hg.), The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development, Cambridge 2021, S. 137–151. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  489. Pyhälä, Minna/Brusendroff, Anne Christine/Paulomäki, Hanna, The precautionary principle, in: Fitzmaurice, Malgosia/Ong, David M./Merkouris, Panos (Hg.), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Cheltenham u.a. 2010, S. 203–226. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  490. Rahdert, Mark C., Comparative Constitutional Advocacy, American University Law Review 553–666 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  491. Rajamani, Lavanya, Doctrine of Public Trust: A Tool to Ensure Effective State Management of Natural Resources, 38 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 72–82 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  492. –, Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability, 19 Journal of Environmental Law 293–321 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  493. –, The Right to Environmental Protection in India: Many a Slip between the Cup and the Lip, 16 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 274–286 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  494. –, International Law and the Constitutional Schema, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 143–159. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  495. –, The Precautionary Principle, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 192–229. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  496. Rajamani, Lavanya/Ghosh, Shibani, India, in: Lord, Richard/Goldberg, Silke/Rajamani, Lavanya/Brunnée, Jutta (Hg.), Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice, Cambridge u.a. 2012, S. 139–177. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  497. Ramachandran, Raju/Thallam, Mythili Vijay Kumar, The Obvious Foundation Test: Re-inventing the Basic Structure Doctrine, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 109–121. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  498. Ramanathan, Usha, The Bhopal case: retrospect and prospect, in: Cullet, Philippe/Koonan, Sujith (Hg.), Research Handbook on Law, Environment and the Global South, Cheltenham 2019, S. 138–145. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  499. Ramsey, Michael D., Beyond the Text: Justice Scalia’s Originalism in Practice, 92 Notre Dame Law Review 1945–1976 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  500. Rao, Remmaraju Sreenivasa, International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law (Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities): First report on prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities (A/CN.4/487 and Add.1), International Law Commission, 1998. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  501. Rapaczynski, Andrzej, Bibliographical Essay: The Influence of U.S. Constitutionalism Abroad, in: Rosenthal, Albert J./Henkin, Louis (Hg.), Constitutionalism and Rights: The Influence of the United States Constitution Abroad, New York 1990, S. 405–462. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  502. Rathod, Nihalsing B., „3 years after Bhima Koregaon: How criminal law was violated“, in: The Leaflet, 09.06.2021, https://theleaflet.in/3-years-after-bhima-koregaon-how-criminal-law-was-violated (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  503. Rattani, Vijeta, Coping with Climate Change: An Analysis of India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi 2018, https://www.cseindia.org/coping-with-climate-change-8488 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  504. Rau, Christian, Selbst entwickelte Grenzen in der Rechtsprechung des United States Supreme Court und des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Diss. Mannheim), Berlin 1996. Zitiert als: Selbst entwickelte Grenzen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  505. Rauda, Christian/Zenthöfer, Jochen, „Wem gehört eigentlich der Kölner Dom?“, in: Der Spiegel (Online), 05.12.2010, https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/jura-kurios-wem-gehoert-eigentlich-der-koelner-dom-a-725153.html (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  506. Rayfuse, Rosemary, Precaution and Climate Change: What Role for the Precautionary Principle in Addressing Global Warming?, in: Hebeler, Timo/Hofmann, Ekkehard/Proeßl, Alexander/Reiff, Peter (Hg.), Protecting the Environment for Future Generations — Principles and Actors in International Environmental Law: International Symposium on Environmental and Technology Law, 29–30 October 2015, Berlin 2017, S. 61–77. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  507. Razzaque, Jona, Application of Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Cases, 13 Journal of Environmental Law 221–234 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  508. –, Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Den Hague u.a. 2004. Zitiert als: Public Interest Environmental Litigation. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  509. Redaktion, „Für den Klimaschutz ist das ein Ausrufezeichen“, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 29.04.2021, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/klimaschutzgesetz-reaktionen-1.5280199 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  510. Redish, Martin H., Judicial Review and the Political Question, 79 Northwestern University Law Review 1031–1061 (1984-1985). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  511. Redmond, Patrick, The Public Trust in Wildlife: Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back, 49 249–311 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  512. Richers, Dominik, Postmoderne Theorie in der Rechtsvergleichung, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 2007, S. 509–540. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  513. Ritthaler-Andree, Ronja, Klimagerechtigkeit und Klimaschutzpolitik: Die Verhandlungspositionen der USA, Chinas und Indiens von 2009–2018 (Diss. Heidelberg), Baden-Baden 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  514. Roberts, Jr., John G., 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C. 2024, https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  515. Robinson, Nick, Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court, 8 Washington University Global Studies Law Review 1–69 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  516. –, Structure Matters: The Impact of Court Structure on the Indian and U.S. Supreme Court, 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 173–208 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  517. –, Judicial Architecture and Capacity, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 330–348. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  518. –, The Structure and Functioning of the Supreme Court of India, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 23–42. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  519. Rodríguez-Garavito, César, Human Rights: The Global South’s Route to Climate Litiagation, 114 AJIL Unbound 40–44 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  520. - (Hg.), Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action, Cambridge 2022. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  521. Roesler, Shannon M., State Standing to Challenge Federal Authority in the Modern Administrative State, 91 Washington Law Review 637–702 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  522. –, State-Created Environmental Dangers and Substantive Due Process, 73 Florida Law Review 685–746 (2021). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  523. Rohatgi, Mukul, Checks and Balances Revisited: The Role of the Executive in Judicial Appointments, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 84–95. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  524. Rosanvallon, Pierre, Counter-democracy: politics in an age of distrust, Cambridge 2008. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  525. Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir, Conclusion: Neither a Silver Bullet Nor a Hollow Hope, in: Rosenberg, Gerald N./Bail, Shishir/Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019, S. 345–358. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  526. - (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  527. Rosencranz, Armin/Boening, Edward/Dutta, Brinda, The Godavarman Case: The Indian Supreme Court’s Breach of Constitutional Boundaries in Managing India’s Forests, 37 Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 10032–10042 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  528. Rosencranz, Armin/Jackson, Michael, The Delhi Pollution Case: The Supreme Court of India and the Limits of Judicial Power, 28 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 223–254 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  529. Rosencranz, Armin/Lélé, Sharachchandra, Supreme Court and India’s Forests, Economic & Political Weekly 11–14 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  530. Ross, Lisa-Marie, Strategic climate change litigation: a global movement? Developments in Southeast Asia in the context of recent global trends, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 2024, S. 44–69. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  531. Rotunda, Ronald D., The Political Question Doctrine in the United States, in: Bovend’Eert, Paul P. T./van den Eijnden, P. Maria/Kortmann, Constantijn A. J. M. (Hg.), Grenzen aan rechtspraak? Political question, acte de gouvernement en rechterlijk interventionisme, Deventer 2004, S. 1–39. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  532. Rotunda, Ronald D./Nowak, John E., Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, 1. Bd., 2. Aufl., St. Paul 1992. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  533. Roy, Alpana, Postcolonial Theory and Law: A Critical Introduction, 29 Adelaide Law Review 315–357 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  534. Roy, Suryapratim/Woerdman, Edwin, Situating Urgenda v the Netherlands within Comparative Climate Change Litigation, 34 Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 165–189 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  535. Ruddy, Samuel H., Finding a Constitutional Home for the Public Trust Doctrine, 43 Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal 139–162 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  536. Rüffel, Dirk, Das Institut der Klagebefugnis zur Verfolgung von Umweltinteressen: Ein Rechtsvergleich zwischen den Vereingten Staaten, Großbritannien, Deutschland und der Europäischen Union unter besonderer Würdigung von Verbandsklagen (Diss. Mannheim), Stuttgart u.a. 2008. Zitiert als: Klagebefugnis zur Verfolgung von Umweltinteressen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  537. Ruhl, J. B./McGinn, Thomas A. J., The Roman Public Trust Doctrine: What Was It, and Does It Support an Atmospheric Trust?, 47 Ecology Law Quarterly 117–178 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  538. Ruple, John C./Race, Kayla M., Measuring the NEPA Litigation Burden: A Review of 1,499 Federal Court Cases, 50 Environmental Law 479–522 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  539. Ryan, Erin, The Public Trust Doctrine, Private Water Allocation, and Mono Lake: The Historic Saga of National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 45 Environmental Law 561–642 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  540. –, From Mono Lake to the Atmospheric Trust: Navigating the Public and Private Interests in Public Trust Resource Commons, 10 George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law 39–65 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  541. –, A Short History of the Public Trust Doctrine and Its Intersection with Private Water Law, 38 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 135–206 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  542. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Climate Change Litigation Database, http://climatecasechart.com (Stand: 01.11.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  543. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law/United Nations Environmental Programme, Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Nairobi 2020, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34818/GCLR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  544. Sagar, Rahul, Emergency Powers, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 213–231. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  545. Saharay, Madhusudan, Adoption of Foreign Doctrines by the Supreme Court: In Interpretation of the Constitution, Kolkata u.a. 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  546. Sahasranaman, P. B., Handbook of Environmental Law, New Delhi 2009. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  547. Sahu, Geetanjoy/Rosencranz, Armin, Court-Appointed Monitoring Committees: The Case of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority, 5 Law, Environment and Development Journal 185–192 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  548. Saiger, Anna-Julia, Domestic Courts and the Paris Agreement’s Climate Goals: The Need for a Comparative Approach, 9 Transnational Environmental Law 37–54 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  549. –, Strategische Rechtsentwicklung durch Gerichtsverfahren: Welche Rolle hat die Wissenschaft im Öffentlichen Recht?, in: Bretthauer, Sebastian/Henrich, Christina/Völzmann, Berit/Wolckenhaar, Leonard/Zimmermann, Sören (Hg.), Wandlungen im Öffentlichen Recht: Festschrift zu 60 Jahren Assistententagung – Junge Tagung Öffentliches Recht, Baden-Baden 2020, S. 357–372. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  550. –, Nationale Gerichte im Klimaschutzvölkerrecht: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum Pariser Übereinkommen (Diss. Berlin), Baden-Baden 2022. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  551. Salzman, James, United States of America, in: Lees, Emma/Viñuales, Jorge E. (Hg.), The Oxford handbook of comparative environmental law, Oxford 2019, S. 374–394. Zitiert als: United States. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  552. Salzman, James/Thompson, Jr., Barton H., Environmental Law and Policy, St. Paul 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  553. Samad, Muhammaed Siddik Abdul/Varghese, George K./Alappat, Babu J., Environmental Forensics in India – Four years after the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, 30 Procedia Environmental Sciences 91–96 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  554. Sands, Philippe, Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future in International Law, 28 19-35 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  555. Sands, Philippe/Peel, Jacqueline/Fabra, Adriana/MacKenzie, Ruth, Principles of International Environmental Law, 4. Aufl., Cambridge 2018. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  556. Sangal, Aditi, „India Prime Minister pledges net-zero emissions by 2070“, in: CNN (Online), 01.11.2021, https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/cop26-climate-summit-intl-11-01-21/h_a51c083e5fe0ccd52e75a20bd7dc1d32 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  557. Saryal, Rajnish, Climate Change Policy of India: Modifying the Environment, 38 South Asia Research 1–19 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  558. Sathe, S. P., Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 29–107 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  559. Saurer, Johannes, Strukturen gerichtlicher Kontrolle im Klimaschutzrecht - Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2018, S. 679–686. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  560. Saurer, Johannes/Purnhagen, Kai, Klimawandel vor Gericht – Der Rechtsstreit der Nichtregierungsorganisation „Urgenda“ gegen die Niederlande und seine Bedeutung für Deutschland, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2017, S. 16–22. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  561. Sax, Joseph L., The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Michigan Law Review 471–566 (1970). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  562. –, Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine from its Historical Shackles, 14 University of California Davis Law Review 185–194 (1980). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  563. Scalia, Antonin, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk University Law Review 881–900 (1983). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  564. Scalia, Antonin/Breyer, Stephen, The Relevance of Foreign Legal Materials in U.S. Constitutional Cases: A Conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer, 3 International Journal of Constitutional Law 519–542 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  565. Schack, Haimo, Einführung in das US-amerikanische Zivilprozessrecht, München 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  566. Scharpf, Fritz, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?, Oxford 1999. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  567. Scharpf, Fritz W., Grenzen der richterlichen Verantwortung: Die political-question-Doktrin in der Rechtsprechung des amerikanischen Supreme Court (Diss. Freiburg), Karlsruhe 1965. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  568. –, Judicial Review and the Political Question: A Functional Analysis, 75 Yale Law Journal 517–597 (1966). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  569. Schlacke, Sabine, Überindividueller Rechtsschutz: Phänomenologie und Systematik überindividueller Klagebefugnisse im Verwaltungs- und Gemeinschaftsrecht, insbesondere am Beispiel des Umweltrechts (Habil. Rostock), Tübingen 2008. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  570. –, Klimaschutzrecht – Ein Grundrecht auf intertemporale Freiheitssicherung, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2021, S. 912–917. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  571. Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard, Das Verwaltungsrecht der Vereingten Staaten von Amerika: Grundlagen und Grundzüge aus deutscher Sicht, Baden-Baden 2021. Zitiert als: US-Verwaltungsrecht. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  572. Schneider, Jens-Peter, Nachvollziehende Amtsermittlung bei der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung: Zum Verhältnis zwischen dem privaten Träger des Vorhabens und der zuständigen Behörde bei der Sachverhaltsermittlung nach dem UVPG (Diss. Freiburg), Berlin 1991. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  573. Schneider, Matthew, Where Juliana Went Wrong: Applying the Public Trust Doctrine to Climate Change Adaptation at the State Level, 41 Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal 47–68 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  574. Schultz, David, Constitutional Precedent in US Supreme Court Reasoning, Cheltenham u.a. 2022. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  575. Schusser, Fabian, Judicial Activism in a Comparative Perspective: The Supreme Court of India vs. the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Diss. Heidelberg), Baden-Baden 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  576. Schwartz, Jason A./Reversz, Richard L., Petitions for Rulemaking: Final Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States (November 5, 2014), Administrative Conference of the United States, Washington, D.C. 2014, https://www.acus.gov/report/petitions-rulemaking-final-report (Stand: 30.03.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  577. Sebastian, Manu, „How Has the Supreme Court Fared During the Modi Years?“, in: The Wire, 12.04.2019, https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-modi-years (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  578. Segal, Jeffrey A./Spaeth, Harold J./Benesh, Sara C., The Supreme Court in the American Legal System, New York 2005. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  579. Seidenfeld, Mark, Revisiting Congressional Delegation of Interpretive Primacy as the Foundation for Chevron Deference, 24 Supreme Court Economic Review 3–40 (2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  580. Sen, Ronojoy, Walking a Tightrope: Judicial Activism and Indian Democracy, 8 India Review 63–80 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  581. Sen, Sarbani, The ‘Public Interest’ in India: Contestation and Confrontation before the Supreme Court, 60 Diogenes 27–44 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  582. Sengupta, Arghya, Justice Chelameswar’s Dissent: Reforming to Preserve, in: Sengupta, Arghya/Sharma, Ritwika (Hg.), Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India: transparency, accountability, and independence, New Delhi 2018, S. 158–167. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  583. Sengupta, Sandeep, India’s Engagement in Global Climate Negotiations from Rio to Paris, in: Dubash, Navroz K. (Hg.), India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development, New Delhi 2019, S. 114–141. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  584. Setzer, Joana/Benjamin, Lisa, Climate Change Litigation in the Global South: Filling in Gaps, 114 AJIL Unbound 56–60 (2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  585. Setzer, Joana/Higham, Catherine, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2023 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (LSE), London 2023, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2023-snapshot (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  586. –, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2024 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (LSE), London 2024, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2024-snapshot.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  587. Shaban, Abdul, Hinduism, Hindutva, and ideology, in: Haynes, Jeffrey (Hg.), Routledge handbook of religion, politics and ideology, Abingdon 2021, S. 342–355. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  588. Sharafi, Mitra, „Why the US can’t claim to have been India’s colonial cousin in its struggle against the British“, in: Scroll.in, 04.07.2016, https://scroll.in/article/811107/colonial-cousins-why-the-had-little-in-com (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  589. Sharma, Charu, Human Rights and Environmental Wrongs: Integrating the Right to Environment and Developmental Justice in the Indian Constitution, in: Kumar, C. Raj/Chockalingam, K. (Hg.), Human Rights, Justice, and Constitutional Empowerment, New Delhi 2007, S. 310–334. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  590. Siegel, Jonathan R., Political Questions and Political Remedies, in: Mourtada-Sabbah, Nada/Cain, Bruce E. (Hg.), The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the United States, Lanham u.a. 2007, S. 243–26. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  591. Sikri, Arjan Kumar, Foreword, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers and Problems: Essays in Honor or Upendra Baxi, Cambridge u.a. 2020, S. vii–xxii. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  592. Sindico, Francesco/Mbengue, Makane Moïse (Hg.), Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects, Berlin 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  593. Singh, Mahendra P./Kumar, Niraj, The Indian Legal System: An Enquiry, Delhi 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  594. Singh, Mehandra Pal, The Federal Scheme, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 451–465. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  595. Singh, Parmanand, Promises and Perils of Public Interest Litigation in India, 52 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 172–188 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  596. Singhvi, Abhishek, Beating the Backlog: Reforms in Administration of Justice in India, in: Khurshid, Salman/Luthra, Sidharth/Malik, Lokendra/Bedi, Shruti (Hg.), Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems: Essays in Honour of Upendra Baxi, Cambridge 2020, S. 46–59. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  597. Sinha, Debadityo/Mehta, Dhvani/Rana, Esha/Kuriakose, Shyama, Courting the Environment: Implementation of Environmental Judgements: Research Findings, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Delhi 2021, https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Courting-the-Environment-Full-Report.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  598. Sisk, Gregory C., Litigation with the federal government, St. Paul 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  599. Sitapati, Vinay, The Impact of the Indian Supreme Court, 41 India International Centre Quarterly 52–61 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  600. Smith, Adam M., Making Itself at Home Understanding Foreign Law in Domestic Jurisprudence: The Indian Case, 24 Berkeley Journal of International Law 218–272 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  601. Quellen- und Literaturverzeichnis Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  602. Normen Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  603. USA Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  604. Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1779, ratifiziert und in Kraft getreten am 25.10.1780. Zitiert als: Massachusetts Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  605. The Constitution of the United States of America, 1788, unterzeichnet am 17.09.1787, ratifiziert am 21.06.1788, in Kraft getreten am 04.03.1789. Zitiert als: U.S. Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  606. Alien Torts Statute, 1789, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  607. Constitution of the State of Texas, 1876, in Kraft getreten am 15.02.1876, zuletzt geändert am 07.05.2022. Zitiert als: Texas Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  608. Constitution of the State of Washington, 1889, ratifiziert am 01.10.1889, zuletzt geändert am 06.11.2007. Zitiert als: Washington Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  609. Constitution of the State of New Mexico, 1912, ratifiziert am 05.11.1911, in Kraft getreten am 06.01.1912, zuletzt geändert am 03.11.2020. Zitiert als: New Mexico Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  610. Administrative Procedure Act, 1946, 11.06.1946, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–596, 701–706, 60 Stat. 243, Pub. L. 79-404. Zitiert als: APA. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  611. The Constitution of the State of Alaska, 1956, ratifiziert am 24.04.1956, in Kraft getreten am 03.01.1959, zuletzt geändert am 01.11.2004. Zitiert als: Alaska Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  612. Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1968, in Kraft getreten am 23.04.1968, zuletzt geändert am 18.05.2021. Zitiert als: Pennsylvania Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  613. National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370m, 83 Stat. 852, Pub. L. 91-190, geändert durch Pub. L. 94-52, Pub. L. 94-83, Pub. L. 97-258. Zitiert als: NEPA. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  614. Constitution of Illinois, 1970, verabschiedet am 15.12.1970. Zitiert als: Illinois Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  615. The Constitution of the State of Montana, 1972, angenommen am 22.03.1972, ratifiziert am 06.06.1972. Zitiert als: Montana Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  616. The Constitution of the State of Hawai’i, 1978, angenommen am 07.11.1978. Zitiert als: Hawai’i Constitution. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  617. National Climate Program Act, 1978, 17.09.1978, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2901–2908, 92 Stat. 601, Pub. L. 95-367. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  618. Gobal Climate Protection Act, 1987, 15 U.S.C. § 2901, 101 Stat. 1407, 100-204. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  619. Clean Air Act, 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401–7671q, Pub. L. 88-206, as amended by Pub. L. 89-727, Pub. L. 90-148, Pub. L. 91-604, Pub. L. 95-95, Pub. L. 101-549. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  620. Global Change Research Act, 1990, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2921–2961, 104 Stat. 3096, Pub. L. 101-606. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  621. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Power Plan, 2015, 23.10.2015, in Kraft getreten am 22.12.2015, 80 Fed. Reg. 64662. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  622. –, Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 2019, 19.06.2019, in Kraft getreten am 06.09.2019, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  623. –, NAAQS Table, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (Stand: 30.03.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  624. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Memorandum for Head of Federal Departments and Agencies: Final Guidance for Federal Deparments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Review, 2016, 01.08.2016, https://perma.cc/QP7E-7PUM (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  625. U.S. House of Representatives, American Justice for American Citizens, 2005, bill introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 14, 2005, H.R. 1658, 109th Congress. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  626. –, Resolution 97, 2005, bill introduced on Feb. 15, 2005, H.R. Res. 97, 109th Congress. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  627. U.S. Senate, Advise and Consent to the Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, […] subject to the following Reservations, Understandings, Declarations and Provisio, 1992, April 2, 2002, S. 870–871. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  628. –, Resolution 92, 2005, bill introduced and referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Mar. 20, 2005, S. Res. 92, 109th Congress. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  629. U.S. Supreme Court, Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2019, https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  630. Indien Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  631. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Gesetz vom 21.03.1908, Act No. 5 of 1908. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  632. The Constitution of India, 1949, in der Fassung vom 28.09.2023. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  633. The All-India Services Act, 1951, Gesetz vom 29.10.1951, Act No. 61 of 1951. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  634. The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, in Kraft getreten am 18.06.1951. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  635. The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, in Kraft getreten am 22.07.1971. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  636. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, in Kraft getreten am 05.11.1971. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  637. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Gesetz vom 09.09.1972, Act No. 53 of 1972. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  638. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Gesetz vom 25.01.1974, Act No. 2 of 1974. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  639. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Gesetz vom 23.03.1974, Act No. 6 of 1974. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  640. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, in Kraft getreten am 18.12.1976. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  641. The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, in Kraft getreten am 30.04.1979. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  642. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Gesetz vom 25.10.1980, Act No. 69 of 1980. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  643. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Gesetz vom 29.03.1981, Act No. 14 of 1981. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  644. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Gesetz vom 23.05.1986, Act No. 29 of 1986. Zitiert als: EPA. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  645. The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, in Kraft getreten am 24.04.1993. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  646. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Gesetz vom 05.02.2003, Act No. 18 of 2003. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  647. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, Gesetz vom 29.12.2006, Act No. 2 of 2007. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  648. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Gesetz vom 02.06.2010, Act No. 19 of 2010. Zitiert als: NGT Act. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  649. The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, in Kraft getreten am 31.12.2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  650. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, Gesetz vom 09.08.2019, Act No. 37 of 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  651. The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, Gesetz vom 13.08.2021, Act No. 33 of 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  652. The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, in Kraft getreten am 28.09.2023. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  653. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Draft: The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2020, https://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Draft_EIA_2020.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  654. Ministry of Environment and Forest, The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, Bekanntmachung vom 14.09.2006, S.O. 1533 (E). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  655. –, The National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011, Bekanntmachung vom 04.04.2011, G.S.R. 296 (E), https://greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/Notification_dated_04-04-2011_GSR_No.296E.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  656. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, The Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2015, Bekanntmachung vom 07.12.2015, S.O. 3305(E). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  657. –, The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, Bekanntmachung vom 18.01.2019, G.S.R. 37 (E). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  658. National Pollution Control Board, The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2009, Bekanntmachung vom 18.11.2009, No. B-29016/20/90/PCI-I, https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/National-Ambient-Air-Quality-Standards.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  659. Supreme Court of India, Compilation of Guidelines to Be Followed for Entertaining Letters/Petitions Received in this Court as Public Interest Litigation, 1988, based on full Court decision dated 01.12.1988 (additions as per Orders dated 19.08.1993 and 29.8.2003), https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2024/01/2024011510.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Zitiert als: S.C. Letter Petiton Guidelines. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  660. –, The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Bekanntmachung vom 27.05.2014, G.S.R. 367 (E), https://www.sci.gov.in/supreme-court-rules (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  661. –, Re: Transparency in Collegium System, 2017, Bekanntmachung vom 03.10.2017, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/documents/collegium/2017.10.03-minutes-transparency.pdf (Stand: 09.05.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  662. –, Roster of the Work for Fresh Cases, Notified Under the Order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, 2025, Bekanntmachung vom 06.01.2025, (Stand: 06.01.2025). Zitiert als: Supreme Court Roster. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  663. Sonstige nationale Normen Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  664. Bangladesch, Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 1972, in der Fassung des Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 2018. Zitiert als: Constitution of Bangladesh. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  665. Pakistan, The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in der Fassung vom 31.05.2018. Zitiert als: Constitution of Pakistan. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  666. Nepal, The Constitution of Nepal, 2015, in der Fassung vom 20.09.2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  667. Erstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetzes (1. KSGÄndG), 2021, Gesetz vom 18.08.2021, BGBl. I S. 3905 (Nr. 59) (in Kraft getreten am 31.08.2021). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  668. Internationale Normen Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  669. United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 24.10.1945, San Francisco 1945. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  670. United Nations, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev. 1, Stockholm 1972. Zitiert als: Stockholm Declaration. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  671. United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity, 05.06.1992, in Kraft getreten am 29.12.1993, 31 ILM 822, Rio de Janeiro 1992. Zitiert als: Biodiversity Convention. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  672. United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 09.05.1992, in Kraft getreten am 21.03.1994, UN Treaty Series Vol. 1771, I-30822, 31 ILM 851, New York 1992. Zitiert als: UNFCCC. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  673. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement, COP 21 (30.11.–13.12.2015), 22.04.2016, in Kraft getreten am 04.11.2016, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, Decision 1/CP.21, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Paris 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  674. United Nations University, Advisory Committee, Goa Guidelines on Intergenerational Equity, 15.02.1988, abgedruckt in Brown Weiss, Edith, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony and Intergenerational Equity, Tokyo 1989, Appendix A , S. 293–295, Goa 1988. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  675. United Nations, General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Resolution 34/180, 18.12.1979, UN Doc. A/RES/34/180, 1979. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  676. United Nations, –, Process of Preparation of the Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond, Resolution 38/161, UN Doc. A/RES/38/161, 1983. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  677. United Nations, –, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution 70/1, 15.10.2015, UN-Dok. A/RES/70/1, 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  678. Government of India, India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions: Working Towards Climate Justice, 2016, 2016, https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  679. –, India’s Updated First Nationally Determined Contribution Under Paris Agreement: 2021–2030, 2022, New Delhi 2022, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-08/India%20Updated%20First%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contrib.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  680. United Nations, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, 03.–14.06.1992, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), Rio de Janeiro 1992. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  681. United Nations, –, Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, 03.–14.06.1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. III), 31 ILM 882, Rio de Janeiro 1992. Zitiert als: Forest Principles. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  682. United Nations, –, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 03.–14.06.1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 31 ILM 876, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992. Zitiert als: Rio Declaration. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  683. Gerichtsverfahren Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  684. USA Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  685. Alaska Superior Court (Anchorage Borough), Sinnok v. State, No. 3AN-17-09910 CI, 2018 WL 7501030 (Ala. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  686. Alaska Supreme Court, Kanuk v. State, 335 P.3d 1088 (Ala. 2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  687. –, Sagoonick v. State, 503 P.3d 777 (Ala. 2022). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  688. Arizona Court of Appeals, Butler ex rel. Peshlakai v. Brewer, No. 1 CA-CV 12-0347, 2013 WL 1091209 (Ariz. App. Mar. 14, 2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  689. California Supreme Court, Marks v. Whitney, 491 P.2d 374 (Cal. 1971). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  690. –, National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  691. Florida Circuit Court (Leon County), Reynolds v. State, No. 2018-CA-819, 2020 WL 3410846 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 9, 2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  692. Hawai’i Circuit Court (1st Cir.), Navahine F. v. Hawai’i Department of Transportation, No. 1CCV-22-0000631, (Haw. Cir. June 20, 2022, Joint Stipulation and Order Re: Settelment). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  693. Hawai’i Supreme Court, In Re Water Use Permit Applications, 9 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  694. Iowa Court of Appeals, Filippone v. State Dep’t of Nat. Res., No. 12-0444, 2013 WL 988627 (Iow. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  695. Louisiana Supreme Court, Morgan v. Negodich, 3 So. 636 (La. 1887). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  696. Maryland Court of Appeals, Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Mayor of Ocean City, 332 A.2d 630 (Md. 1975). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  697. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission, 215 N.E.2d 114 (Mass. 1966). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  698. –, Sacco v. Dep’t of Public Works, 227 N.E.2d 478 (Mass. 1967). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  699. –, Robbins v. Dep’t of Public Works, 244 N.E.2d 577 (Mass. 1969). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  700. –, Kain v. Dep’t of Envt’l Prot., 49 N.E.3d 1124 (Mass. 2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  701. Minnesota Court of Appeals, Aronow v. State, No. A12-0585, 2012 WL 4476642 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  702. Mississippi High Court of Errors and Appeals, Morgan v. Reading, 1844 WL 3217, 11 Miss. 366 (Miss. 1844). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  703. –, The Magnolia v. Marshall, 1860 WL 4829, 39 George (Miss. 1860). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  704. Montana First Judicial District Court (Lewis and Clark County), Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307, 2021 WL 11506414 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Aug. 4, 2021), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/6112b9d83cde100cb673f36e/1628617176778/CDV-2020-307++-++Order+on+Motion+to+Dismiss+%281%29.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  705. –, Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307, 2023 WL 5229257 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023), https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2023/20230814_docket-CDV-2020-307_order.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  706. Montana Supreme Court, Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 988 P 2d. 1236 (Mont. 1999). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  707. –, Park Cty. Envtl. Council v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 477 P.3d 288 (Mont. 2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  708. –, Held v. State, DA23-0575, 2024 WL 5151077 (Mont. Dec. 18, 2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  709. New Jersey Supreme Court, Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1 (N.J. 1821). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  710. –, Gough v. Bell, 22 N.J.L. 441 (N.J. 1850). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  711. New Mexico Court of Appeals, Sanders-Reed v. Martinez, 350 P.3d 1221 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  712. Oregon Circuit Court (Lane County), Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, No. 16-11-09273, 2012 WL 10205018 (Or. Cir. Ct. Apr. 5, 2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  713. –, Chernaik v. Brown, No. 16-11-09273, 2015 WL 12591229 (Or. Cir. Ct. May 11, 2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  714. Oregon Court of Appeals, Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, 328 P.3d 799 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  715. –, Chernaik v. Brown, 436 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  716. Oregon Supreme Court, Chernaik v. Brown, 475 P.3d 68 (Or. 2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  717. Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  718. –, Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 536 (Pa. 2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  719. Texas Court of Appeals (Austin), Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Bonser-Lain, 438 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App. 2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  720. Texas District Court (Travis County), Bonser-Lain v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, No. D-1-GN-11-002194, 2012 WL 3164561 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Aug. 2, 2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  721. Texas Supreme Court, State v. Balli, 190 S.W.2d 71 (Tex. 1944). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  722. U.S. Circuit Court (D.N.J.), Stockton v. Baltimore, 32 F. 9 (C.C. N.J. 1887). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  723. U.S. Court of Appeals (2d Cir.), Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965). Zitiert als: Scenic Hudson. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  724. –, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1985). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  725. –, Connecticut v. American Electronic Power Co. (AEP), 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  726. U.S. Court of Appeals (3d Cir.), Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n v. City of New York, 616 F. 2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1980). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  727. U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir.), Ely v. Velde, 451 F. 2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  728. U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Cir.), Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 607 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir. 2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  729. U.S. Court of Appeals (8th Cir.), Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  730. U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.), Carnessale v. U.S. Senators, 952 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  731. –, L. W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  732. –, Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  733. –, Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  734. –, Center for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  735. –, Campbell v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. and Health Services, 671 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  736. –, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobile Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  737. –, Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  738. –, Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  739. –, Juliana v. United States, 884 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  740. –, Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  741. –, Juliana v. United States, D.C. No. 6:15-cv-1517, unveröffentlicht (9th Cir. May 1, 2024), https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2024/20240501_docket-24-684_order.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  742. U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.), American Jewish Congress v. Vance, 575 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  743. –, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  744. –, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy, 561 Fed. App’x. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  745. U.S. District Court (D. Mass.), United States v. 1.58 Acres of Land Situated in the City of Boston, Suffolk County, Mass., 523 F. Supp. 120 (D. Mass. 1981). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  746. U.S. District Court (D. Or.), Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  747. U.S. District Court (D.D.C.), Fed. Employees for Non-Smokers’ Rights v. United States, 446 F. Supp. 181 (D.D.C. 1978). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  748. –, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. Jackson, 863 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  749. U.S. District Court (E.D. Mich.), Lake v. City of Southgate, No. 16-10251, 2017 WL 767879 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  750. U.S. District Court (E.D. Pa.), Clean Air Council v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 3d 237 (E.D. Pa. 2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  751. U.S. District Court (E.D.N.Y.), In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 475 F. Supp 928 (E.D.N.Y. 1979). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  752. U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.), City of Alameda v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 635 F. Supp. 1447 (N.D. Cal. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  753. –, California v. General Motors Corp., No. C06-05755 MJJ, 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  754. –, SF Chapter of A. Philip Radolph Institute v. EPA, No. C 07-04936 CRB, 2008 WL 859985 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  755. U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.), City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., No. C 17-06011 WHA, No. C 17-06012 WHA, 2018 WL 1064293 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  756. U.S. District Court (N.D. Ohio), Pinkney v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 375 F. Supp 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  757. U.S. District Court (S.D. Miss.), Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-436-LG-RHW, 2007 WL 6942285 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 30, 2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  758. –, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 2d 849 (S.D. Miss. 2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  759. U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex.), Tanner v. Armco Steel Corp., 340 F. Supp 532 (S.D. Tex. 1972). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  760. U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.), Connecticut v. American Electronic Power Co. (AEP), 406 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  761. –, City of New York v. BP P.L.C., 325 F. Supp. 3d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  762. U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  763. –, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  764. –, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  765. –, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1824). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  766. –, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  767. –, Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469 (1833). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  768. –, Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  769. –, Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  770. –, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  771. –, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  772. –, Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  773. –, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  774. –, Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  775. –, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1887). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  776. –, Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  777. –, Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  778. –, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 573 (1896). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  779. –, Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  780. –, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  781. –, The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  782. –, Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  783. –, Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270 (1902). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  784. –, Lochner v. City of New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  785. –, Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  786. –, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  787. –, Pacific States Telefone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  788. –, Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 247 U.S. 302 (1918). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  789. –, Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  790. –, Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  791. –, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  792. –, Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U.S. 51 (1923). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  793. –, Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  794. –, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  795. –, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  796. –, Appleby v. City of New York, 271 U.S. 364 (1926). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  797. –, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  798. –, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  799. –, United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  800. –, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  801. –, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  802. –, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  803. –, Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  804. –, FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470 (1940). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  805. –, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  806. –, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  807. –, Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (1944). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  808. –, Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 552 (1946). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  809. –, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  810. –, Republic of Natural Gas v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62 (1948). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  811. –, South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276 (1950). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  812. –, United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  813. –, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  814. –, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  815. –, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  816. –, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  817. –, Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  818. –, Poe v. Ullmann, 367 U.S. 497 (1961). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  819. –, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  820. –, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  821. –, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  822. –, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  823. –, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  824. –, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  825. –, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  826. –, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  827. –, Ass’n of Data Processing Service Organisations. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  828. –, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  829. –, Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  830. –, Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  831. –, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  832. –, O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (1972). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  833. –, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  834. –, Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  835. –, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  836. –, Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  837. –, Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  838. –, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  839. –, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  840. –, United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  841. –, United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  842. –, Cousins v. Wigonda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  843. –, United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  844. –, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  845. –, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, U.S. 636 (1975). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  846. –, City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  847. –, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  848. –, Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  849. –, Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  850. –, Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  851. –, Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  852. –, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  853. –, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  854. –, Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  855. –, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  856. –, Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  857. –, Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  858. –, Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981). Zitiert als: Milwaukee II. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  859. –, Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  860. –, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  861. –, Plyler v. Doe, 475 U.S. 202 (1982). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  862. –, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  863. –, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  864. –, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chandha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  865. –, Lehr v. Robinson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  866. –, Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  867. –, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  868. –, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  869. –, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  870. –, Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  871. –, City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  872. –, Clark v. Jeter, 456 U.S. 461 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  873. –, Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  874. –, DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty., 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  875. –, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  876. –, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  877. –, United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  878. –, Dep’t of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  879. –, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  880. –, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  881. –, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  882. –, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  883. –, Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  884. –, Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  885. –, Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  886. –, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  887. –, Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  888. –, Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  889. –, M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  890. –, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  891. –, Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  892. –, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  893. –, Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  894. –, Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  895. –, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  896. –, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  897. –, County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 528 U.S. 833 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  898. –, Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  899. –, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  900. –, Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  901. –, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  902. –, Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  903. –, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  904. –, Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  905. –, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  906. –, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  907. –, Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  908. –, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  909. –, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  910. –, Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2005). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  911. –, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  912. –, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  913. –, Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  914. –, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  915. –, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  916. –, Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (2010). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  917. –, American Electronic Power Co. (AEP) v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  918. –, Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  919. –, PPL Montana v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  920. –, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  921. –, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 569 U.S. 1000 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  922. –, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  923. –, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy, 574 U.S. 1047 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  924. –, Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  925. –, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 573 U.S. 302 (2014). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  926. –, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  927. –, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1059 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  928. –, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. __ (2017), 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  929. –, Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018), 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  930. –, Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. __ (2018), 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  931. –, Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. __ (2018), 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  932. –, United States v. U.S. District Court for District of Oregon (Juliana), 139 S. Ct. 1 (Mem) (2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  933. –, Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. __ (2019), 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  934. –, Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. __ (2019), 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  935. –, TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. __ (2021), 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  936. –, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 142 S. Ct. 418 (Mem) (2021). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  937. –, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. __ (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  938. –, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 597 U.S. __ (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  939. –, Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  940. –, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. __ (2023), 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  941. –, Juliana v. United States, Docket Number 24-298, 604 U.S. __ (2024) (U.S. Order List Nov 12, 2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  942. Washington Court of Appeals, Svitak v. State, No. 69710-2-I, 2013 WL 6632124 (Wash. App. Dec. 13, 2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  943. –, Foster v. State Dep’t of Ecology, No. 75374–6–I, 2017 WL 3868481 (Wash. App. Sept. 5, 2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  944. –, Aji P. ex rel. Piper v. State, 480 P.3d 438 (Wash. App. 2021). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  945. Washington Superior Court (King County), Foster v. State Dep’t of Ecology, No. 12-2-25295-1 SEA, 2015 WL 7721362 (Wash. Sup. Ct. Nov. 19, 2015). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  946. –, Foster v. State Dep’t of Ecology, No. 14-2-25295-1 SEA, 2016 WL 11359473 (Wash. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  947. –, Aji P. ex rel. Piper v. State, No. 18-2-04448-1, 2018 WL 3978310 (Wash. Sup. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  948. Washington Supreme Court, Aji P. ex rel. Piper v. State, 497 P.3d 350 (Table), No. 99564-8, 198 Wash.2d 1025 (Wash. 2021). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  949. Indien Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  950. Andra Pradesh High Court, T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corp of Hyderabad, (1987) AIR (AP) 171. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  951. Calcutta High Court, People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, 24.09.1992, Matter No. 2851 of 1992, AIR 1992 Cal 215. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  952. Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation, 12.08.1998, Other Writ Petition No. 324 of 1997, AIR 1999 JK 81. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  953. Kerala High Court, Perumatty Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala, 16.12.2003, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 34292 of 2003, (2004) 1 KLT 731. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  954. Madras High Court, A. Periyakaruppan v. The Principal Secretary to the Government, 19.04.2022, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18636 of 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  955. National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), Jaya Prakash Dabral v. Ministry of Environment & Forest, 14.12.2011, Original Application No. 12 of 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  956. – (Principal Bench), Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment & Forest, 14.12.2011, Appeal No. 5 of 2011. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  957. – (Principal Bench), M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Thoothukudi v. Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai, 08.08.2013, Appeal No. 22 of 2013 (SZ). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  958. – (Western Zone Bench), Betty C. Alvares v. State of Goa, 14.02.2014, Original Application No. 63 of 2012. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  959. – (Principal Bench), Court in its Own Motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 06.02.2014, Original Application No. 237 (THC) of 2013 (abrufbar über O.A. 239/2013). Zitiert als: Rohtang Pass. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  960. – (Principal Bench), Tribunal At Its Own Motion v. Ministry of Environment, 04.04.2014, Original Application No. 16 of 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  961. – (Principal Bench), Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 17.07.2014, Miscellaneous Application No. 182 of 2014. Zitiert als: Wilfred J. I. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  962. – (Principal Bench), Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 23.07.2015, Original Application No. 498 of 2014. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  963. – (Principal Bench), Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 10.12.2015, Original Application No. 170 of 2014. Zitiert als: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (HFC-23). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  964. – (Principal Bench), Kallpavalli Vrishka Pempakamdarula Paraspara Sahayaka Shakara Sangam Ltd. v. Union of India, 25.08.2015, Original Application No. 92 of 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  965. – (Principal Bench), S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India, 07.07.2015, Original Application No. 37 of 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  966. – (Principal Bench), Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 02.09.2016, Original Application No. 74 of 2014. Zitiert als: Wilfred J. II. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  967. – (Principal Bench), Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity v. Union of India, 08.12.2017, Original Application No. 677 of 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  968. – (Principal Bench), Sunil Dahiya v. Union of India, 17.01.2018, Original Application No. 315 of 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  969. – (Principal Bench), Mahendra Pandey v. Union of India, 08.01.2019, Original Application No. 470 of 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  970. – (Principal Bench), Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, 15.01.2019, Original Application No. 187 of 2017. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  971. Rajasthan High Court, L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, 19.09.1986, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 1986, AIR 1988 Raj 2. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  972. Supreme Court of India, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union Of India, 04.12.1950, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 72 of 1950, (1950) 1 SCR 869, AIR 1951 SC 41. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  973. –, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 19.05.1950, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 1950, (1950) SCR 88. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  974. –, Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. The Union of India and the State of Bihar, 05.10.1951, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166 of 1951, (1952) SCR 89, AIR 1951 SC 458. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  975. –, The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 05.02.1962, Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1961, (1962) Supp 3 SCR 1, AIR 1962 SC 1044. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  976. –, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 18.12.1962, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 356 of 1961, (1962) 1 SCR 332. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  977. –, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 30.10.1964, Civil Wirt Petition No. 31 of 1964, (1964) 1 SCR 933, AIR 1965 SC 845. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  978. –, I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 27.02.1967, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 153 of 1966, (1967) 2 SCR 762. Zitiert als: Golak Nath. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  979. –, His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadanagalavaru v. State of Kerala, 24.04.1973, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 135 of 1970, (1973) Supp SCR 1, AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225. Zitiert als: Kesavananda Bharati. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  980. –, Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, 07.11.1975, Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975, (1975) 2 SCR 347, AIR 1975 SC 2299, (1975) Supp SCC 1. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  981. –, Additional District Magistrate (A.D.M.), Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla, 28.04.1976, Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1975, (1976) SCR 172, 1976 AIR 1207, (1976) 2 SCC 521. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  982. –, Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Debholkar, 13.08.1975, Civil Appeal No. 1461 of 1974, (1976) 1 SCR 306, AIR 1975 SC 2092. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  983. –, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, 19.12.1975, Civil Appeal No. 2035 of 1971, (1976) 3 SCR 58, 1976 AIR 578, (1976) 1 SCC 671. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  984. –, Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 02.11.1976, Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1976, (1976) 1 SCR 1072, AIR 1976 SC 2602, (1977) 1 SCC 155. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  985. –, State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 06.05.1977, Original Suit No. 1 of 1977, Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 67 of 1977, (1977) 1 SCR 1, AIR 1977 SC 1361, (1977) 3 SCC 592. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  986. –, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, 19.09.1977, (1977) 1 SCR 423, AIR 1977 SC 2328, (1997) 4 SCC 193. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  987. –, Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, 15.02.1978, Civil Election Petition No. 1 of 1977, (1978) 3 SCR 1, AIR 1978 SC 499, AIR 2001 SC 2007. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  988. –, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 25.01.1978, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 1977, (1978) 2 SCR 621, 1978 AIR 597. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  989. –, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 09.03.1979, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 57 of 1979, (1979) 3 SCR 532, AIR 1979 SC 1369, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  990. –, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 12.02.1979, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 57 of 1979, (1979) 3 SCR 169, AIR 1979 SC 1360, (1980) 1 SCC 81. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  991. –, Jolly George Verghese v. The Bank of Cochin, 04.02.1980, Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 1979, (1980) 2 SCR 913, 1980 AIR 470, 1980 SCR (2) 913. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  992. –, Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, 13.11.1980, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3804 of 1980, (1981) 2 SCR 52, AIR 1981 SC 344, (1981) 1 SCC 568. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  993. –, Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, 13.01.1981, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3042 of 1980, (1981) 2 SCR 516, AIR 1981 SC 746, (1981) 1 SCC 608. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  994. –, Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union Of India, 31.07.1980, Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 356 of 1977 a.o., (1981) 1 SCR 206, AIR 1980 SC 1789, (1980) 3 SCC 625. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  995. –, Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand, 29.07.1980, Criminal Special Leave Petition No. 2856 of 1979, (1981) 1 SCR 97, AIR 1980 SC 1622. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  996. –, Waman Rao v. Union of India, 13.11.1980, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 656 of 1977, (1981) 2 SCR 1, AIR 1981 SC 271, (1981) 2 SCC 362. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  997. –, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8143 of 1981, (1982) 1 SCR 456, 1982 AIR 1473. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  998. –, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 30.12.1981, Civil Transfer Case No. 19 of 1981, (1982) 2 SCR 365, AIR 1982 SC 149, (1981) Supp 1 SCC 87. Zitiert als: S.P. Gupta (First Judges’ Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  999. –, Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 15.02.1983, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1053 of 1982, (1983) 2 SCR 337, AIR 1983 SC 378, (1983) 2 SCC 96. Zitiert als: Sheela Barse (Women Prisoners). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1000. –, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 16.12.1983, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2135 of 1982, (1984) 2 SCR 67, AIR 1984 SC 802, (1984) 3 SCC 161. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1001. –, Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, 21.02.1984, Civil Appeal No. 3216 of 1983, (1984) 2 SCR 664, AIR 1984 SC 667, (1984) 2 SCC 534. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1002. –, Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 06.02.1984, Criminal Special Leave Petition No. 6693 of 1986 (zuvor als Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1171 of 1982), (1984) 2 SCR 469, AIR 1984 SC 469, (1984) 2 SCC 244. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1003. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Delhi Industrial Pollution). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1004. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Delhi Vehicular Pollution). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1005. –, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 10.07.1985, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4610 of 1981, (1986) Supp 2 SCR 51, AIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1006. –, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 12.03.1985, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8209 of 1983, (1986) 3 SCR 169, AIR 1986 SC 652, (1985) 2 SCC 431. Zitiert als: Rural Litigation Kendra I. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1007. –, Sheela Barse v. Union of India, 05.08.1986, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1451 of 1985, (1986) 3 SCR 443, AIR 1986 SC 1773, (1986) 3 SCC 596. Zitiert als: Sheela Barse (Children Prisoners). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1008. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 20.12.1986, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12739 of 1985, (1987) 1 SCR 819, 1987 AIR 1086. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Shriram Foods and Fertilizers). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1009. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 22.09.1987, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3727 of 1985, (1988) 1 SCR 279, AIR 1987 SC 1115, (1988) 1 SCC 471. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Ganga Pollution). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1010. –, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh 30.08.1988, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8209 of 1983, (1988) Supp 2 SCR 690, AIR 1988 SC 2187, (1989) Supp 1 SCC 504. Zitiert als: Rural Litigation Kendra II. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1011. –, Sheela Barse v. Union of India, 29.08.1988, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1451 of 1985, 1988 JT (3) 15. Zitiert als: Sheela Barse (Application for Withdrawal). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1012. –, Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, 22.12.1989, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 268 of 1989, (1989) Supp 2 SCR 597, AIR 1990 SC 1480, (1990) 1 SCC 613. Zitiert als: Charan Lal Sahu (Review of Bhopal Act). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1013. –, Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 15.02.1989, Civil Appeal No. 3187 of 1988, (1989) 1 SCC 674. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1014. –, M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, 31.01.1990, Civil Appeal No. 2598 of 1989, AIR 1990 SC 630, (1990) 1 SCC 520. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1015. –, Alpha Chem v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 08.01.1991, Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1991, (1991) Supp 1 SCC 518. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1016. –, Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat, 11.09.1991, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 517 of 1989, (1991) 3 SCR 936, AIR 1991 SC 2176, (1991) 4 SCC 406. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1017. –, Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 09.01.1991, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 381 of 1991, (1991) 1 SCR 5, AIR 1991 SC 420, (1991) 1 SCC 598. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1018. –, Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 03.10.1991, Civil Appeal No. 3187 of 1988, (1991) Supp 1 SCR 251, AIR 1992 SC 248, (1991) 4 SCC 548. Zitiert als: Union Carbide Corporation (Bhopal Settlement Review). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1019. –, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 16.11.1992, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 930 of 1990, (1992) Supp 2 SCR 454, AIR 1993 SC 477, (1992) Supp 3 SCC 217. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1020. –, M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India, 27.08.1992, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 149 of 1992, (1992) Supp 1 SCR 53, AIR 1993 SC 1407, (1992) 4 SCC 605. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1021. –, Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnatak, 30.07.1992, (1992) 3 SCR 658, 1992 AIR 1858. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1022. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 24.10.1994, Writ Petition (Civil) 13029 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Lead Phase-Out). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1023. –, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 11.03.1994, Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1989 (1994) 2 SCR 644, AIR 1994 SC 1918, (1994) 3 SCC 1. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1024. –, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association v. Union of India, 06.10.1993, (1994) Supp 2 SCR 659, AIR 1994 SC 268, (1993) 4 SCC 441. Zitiert als: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record (Second Judges’ Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1025. –, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 24.11.1994, Civil Appeal No. 9151 of 1994, (1994) Supp 6 SCR 78, (1995) 2 SCC 577. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1026. –, Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, 27.01.1995, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986, (1995) 1 SCR 626, AIR 1995 SC 922, (1995) 3 SCC 42. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1027. –, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, 11.09.1995, Civil Appeal No. 8184 of 1995, (1995) Supp 3 SCR 477, AIR 1996 SC 149, (1995) 6 SCC 363. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1028. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1029. –, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 18.04.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 664 of 1993, (1996) Supp 1 SCR 507, (1996) 5 SCC 281. Zitiert als: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action II. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1030. –, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 13.02.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 967 of 1989, (1996) 2 SCR 503, AIR 1996 SC 1446, (1996) 3 SCC 212. Zitiert als: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action I. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1031. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 19.12.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3727 of 1985, (1996) Supp 10 SCR 383, (1997) 2 SCC 411. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Tanneries Calcutta). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1032. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 12.12.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 171 of 1996, (1996) 9 SCR 982, AIR 1997 SC 1228, (1997) 2 SCC 267. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1033. –, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, 28.08.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 914 of 1991, (1996) Supp 5 SCR 241, AIR 1996 SC 2715, (1996) 5 SCC 647. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1034. –, Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 21.03.1997, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 511 of 1995, (1997) 3 SCR 269, (1997) 5 SCC 201. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1035. –, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 18.03.1997, Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1980, (1997) 2 SCR 1186. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1036. –, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 13.12.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 182 of 1996, (1997) Supp 10 SCR 12, (1997) 1 SCC 388. Zitiert als: Kamal Nath. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1037. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 30.12.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984, (1997) Supp 10 SCR 973, AIR 1997 SC 734, (1997) 2 SCC 353. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Taj Mahal Trapezium). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1038. –, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 18.12.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 256 of 1991, (1997) Supp 10 SCR 321, AIR 1997 SC 568, (1997) 1 SCC 301. Zitiert als: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Telephone Tapping Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1039. –, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 05.02.1997, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 612 of 1992, AIR 1997 SC 1203, (1997) 3 SCC 433. Zitiert als: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Compensation for Police Killings). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1040. –, Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 18.12.1997, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 340 of 1993, (1997) Supp 6 SCR 595, AIR 1998 SC 889, (1997) 1 SCC 226. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1041. –, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 13.08.1997, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of 1992, (1997) Supp 3 SCR 404, AIR 1997 SC 3011, (1997) 6 SCC 241. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1042. –, In Re: Appointment & Transfer of Judges, 28.10.1998, Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, (1998) Supp 2 SCR 400, AIR 1999 SC 1. Zitiert als: In Re: Appointment & Transfer of Judges (Third Judges’ Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1043. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 22.09.1998, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, (1998) Supp 2 SCR 24, AIR 1999 SC 291, (1998) 8 SCC 206. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Phase-Out of Old Commercial Vehicles). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1044. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 14.02.1996, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, (1998) 8 SCC 648. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (CNG for Government Vehicles Follow-up). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1045. –, Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 17.04.1998, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 200 of 1995, (1998) 2 SCR 795, AIR 1998 SC 1895, (1998) 4 SCC 409. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1046. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 29.04.1999, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, (1999) 6 SCC 12. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Euro II). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1047. –, M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 26.07.1999, Civil Appeal No. 9323 of 1994, (1999) 3 SCR 1066, AIR 1999 SC 2468, (1999) 6 SCC 464. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1048. –, A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.), 27.01.1999, Civil Appeal No. 368 of 1999, (1999) 1 SCR 235, AIR 1999 SC 812, (1999) 2 SCC 718. Zitiert als: A.P. Pollution Control Board I. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1049. –, Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, 15.02.2000, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 888 of 1996, (2000) 1 SCR 841, (2000) 2 SCC 679. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1050. –, Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India, 16.02.2000, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13658 of 1996, (2000) 1 SCR 907, AIR 2000 SC 975, (2000) 2 SCC 599. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1051. –, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 18.10.2000, (2000) Supp 4 SCR 94, AIR 2000 SC 3751, (2000) 10 SCC 664. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1052. –, Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 10.12.2001, Civil Transfer Case No. 8 of 2001, (2001) Supp 5 SCR 511, AIR 2002 SC 350, (2002) 2 SCC 333. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1053. –, Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) v. Union of India 04.05.2001, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2000, (2001) 3 SCR 534. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1054. –, A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Redt.), 22.12.2000, Civil Appeal No. 368 of 1999, (2001) Supp 5 SCR 249, (2001) 2 SCC 62. Zitiert als: A.P. Pollution Control Board II. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1055. –, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 28.11.2001, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2001. Zitiert als: Right to Food. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1056. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 30.10.2002, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 191338 of 2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1057. –, In Re: News Item Published in Hindustan Times Titled “And Quiet Flows the Maily Yamuna”, 12.12.2003, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 725 of 1994. Zitiert als: And Quiet Flows the Maily Yamuna. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1058. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 18.03.2004, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985, (2004) 3 SCR 126, AIR 2004 SC 4016, (2004) 12 SCC 118. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Mining). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1059. –, G.M., O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel, 08.08.2005, Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2004, (2005) Supp 2 SCR 448, (2005) 6 SCC 454. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1060. –, Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. Union of India, 05.01.2005, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657 of 1995, (2005) 1 SCR 115, (2005) 13 SCC 186. Zitiert als: Research Foundation I. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1061. –, Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 23.02.2006, Civil Appeal No. 1251 of 2006, AIR 2006 SC 1350, (2006) 3 SCC 549. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1062. –, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa, 12.05.2006, Civil Appeal No. 7405 of 2000, (2006) Supp 2 SCR 362, AIR 2006 SC 2038, (2006) 6 SCC 371. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1063. –, Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, 22.08.2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2004, AIR 2006 SC 3127, (2006) 7 SCC 1. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1064. –, M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 19.10.2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 61 of 2002, (2006) Supp 7 SCR 336, AIR 2007 SC 71, (2006) 8 SCC 212. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1065. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 24.03.2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Establishment Monitoring Committee). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1066. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 26.09.2005, (2006) Supp 3 SCR 552, AIR 2005 SC 4256, (2006) 1 SCC 1. Zitiert als: T.N. Godavarman (Compensation of Deforestation). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1067. –, Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, 06.12.2007, Civil Appeal No. 5732 of 2007, (2007) 12 SCR 1084, (2008) 1 SCC 683. Zitiert als: Aravali Golf Club. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1068. –, I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 11.01.2007, Civil Appeal No. 1344 of 1976, (2007) 1 SCR 706, AIR 2007 SC 861, 2007 (2) SCC 1. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1069. –, Neetu v. State of Punjab, 08.01.2007, Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2007, (2007) 1 SCR 223, AIR 2007 SC 758, (2007) 10 SCC 614. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1070. –, Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. Union of India, 11.09.2007, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657 of 1995. Zitiert als: Research Foundation II. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1071. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 14.12.2007, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 2016). Zitiert als: T.N. Godavarman (Re-establishment Central Empowered Committee). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1072. –, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, 20.01.2009, Civil Appeal No. 4154 of 2000, (2009) 3 SCR 1, (2009) 3 SCC 571. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1073. –, Laxmidas Morarji (Dead) by LRs v. Miss Behrose Darab Madan, 18.09.2009, Civil Appeal No. 5786 of 2002, (2009) 14 SCR 777, (2009) 10 SCC 425. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1074. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India with T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 08.05.2009, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (I.A. No. 1967 in I.A. No. 1785 a.o.) with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 1465 and I.A. Nos. 2426–2427), (2009) 9 SCR 998, (2009) 6 SCC 142. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Delhi Industrial Pollution) with T.N. Godavarman (Mining). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1075. –, Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 09.09.2010, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 242 of 1988, (2010) 10 SCC 96. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1076. –, Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 07.05.2010, Civil Appeal No. 4273 of 2010, (2010) 7 SCC 1. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1077. –, State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 18.01.2010, Civil Appeal No. 1134 of 2002, (2010) 2 SCR 678, AIR 2010 SC 2550, (2010) 3 SCC 402. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1078. –, Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, 11.05.2010, Civil Appeal No. 3067 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 3717 of 2005, (2010) 6 SCR 857. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1079. –, Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 06.07.2011, (2011) 7 SCR 954, AIR 2011 SC 2781, (2011) 7 SCC 338. Zitiert als: T.N. Godavarman (Lafarge). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1080. –, Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2011, (2011) 14 SCC 337. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1081. –, Bhopal Gas Pidith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India, 09.08.2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 1998. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1082. –, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India with Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, 02.02.2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 423 of 2010, AIR 2012 SC 3725, (2012) 3 SCC 1. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1083. –, In Re: Networking of Rivers, 27.02.2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2000, AIR 2012 SC 3787, (2012) 4 SCC 51. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1084. –, In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, 27.09.2012, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 9 SCR 311, AIR 2012 SC 6194, (2012) 10 SCC 1. Zitiert als: Advisory Opinion (Resource Allocation). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1085. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 13.02.2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 1287 of 2005). Zitiert als: T.N. Godavarman (Sandalwood). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1086. –, Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India, 15.04.2013, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995, (2013) 6 SCR 757. Zitiert als: WWF-I (Lions). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1087. –, Chief Election Commissioner v. Jan Chaukidar, 10.07.2013, Civil Appeal No. 3040 of 2004, (2013) 7 SCC 507. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1088. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 30.04.2013, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Order Remanding to Delhi Appellate Tribunals and Delhi High Court). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1089. –, Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 18.04.2013, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009, AIR 2013 SC 3217, (2013) 8 SCC 154. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1090. –, Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, 07.05.1988, Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014, (2014) 7 SCC 547. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1091. –, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, 08.08.2013, Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2013, (2014) 1 SCC 603. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1092. –, In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial News dated 23.01.2014, 28.03.2014, Criminal Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 24 of 2014, AIR 2014 SC 2816, (2014) 4 SCC 786. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1093. –, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 400 of 2012 and No. 604 of 2013, AIR 2014 SC 1863, (2014) 5 SCC 438. Zitiert als: National Legal Services Authority (Transgender Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1094. –, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association v. Union of India, 16.10.2015, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015, (2016) 5 SCC 1. Zitiert als: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record (NJAC Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1095. –, Mathai @ Joby v. George, 11.01.2016, Civil Special Leave Petition No. 7105 of 2010. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1096. –, Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 12.09.2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1097. –, Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 11.11.2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015, AIR 2017 SC 173, (2017) 1 SCC 412. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1098. –, State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd. Salim, 07.07.2017, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16870 of 2017. Zitiert als: Mohd. Salim. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1099. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 03.02.2022, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995. Zitiert als: T.N. Godavarman (Demise of Petitioner). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1100. –, Union of India v. Lalit Miglani, 27.11.2017, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33968 of 2017. Zitiert als: Lalit Miglani. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1101. –, Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 23.10.2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1102. –, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 26.09.2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. Zitiert als: Aadhaar Case. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1103. –, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 24.10.2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Metha (Bharat Stage VI/Euro VI Phase-Out). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1104. –, Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar, 06.07.2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018, AIR 2018 SC 3287, (2018) 8 SCC 396. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1105. –, Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India 29.03.2019, Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018, (2019) 15 SCC 401. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1106. –, M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das, 09.11.2019, Civil Appeal No. 10866 of 2010. Zitiert als: M Siddiq (Babri Masjid). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1107. –, Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, 01.04.2020, Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2016. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1108. –, Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 03.12.2020, Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2020. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1109. –, Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency, 12.05.2021, Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1796 of 2021). Zitiert als: Gautam Navlakha (Bhima Koregaon Case). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1110. –, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, Petition filed on 31.08.2021, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1111. –, Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authorities, 05.01.2021, Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021. Zitiert als: Rajeev Suri (Central Vista Project). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1112. –, Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, Appeal filed on 15.04.2019, Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1113. –, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 15.02.2021, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 191338 of 2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1114. –, M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 21.03.2024, Writ Petition (Civil) 838 of 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1115. –, Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, 05.12.2024, Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021. Zitiert als: Pandey v. Union of India (Order Amici Curiae). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1116. Uttarakhand High Court, Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, 30.03.2017, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1117. –, Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, 20.03.2017, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, (2017) 2 RCR (CIVIL) 636. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1118. Deutschland Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1119. BVerfG, Beschluss vom 19.02.1957, Az. 1 BvL 13/54, BVerfGE 6, 222. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1120. –, Climate Change/Changement Climatique/Protección del clima, Beschluss vom 24.03.2021, Az. 1 BvR 2656/18 https://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1121. –, Klimabeschluss, Beschluss vom 24.03.2021, Az. 1 BvR 2656/18, BVerfGE 157, 30, NJW 2021, 1723. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1122. –, Landesklimaschutzgesetze, Beschluss vom 18.01.2022, Az. 1 BvR 2565/21, NJW 2022, 844. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1123. –, Windenergie-Beteiligungsgesellschaften, Beschluss vom 23.03.2022, Az. 1 BvR 1187/17, BVerfGE 161, 63, NVwZ 2022, 861. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1124. LG Essen, Luciano Lliuya ./. RWE AG, Urteil vom 15.12.2016, Az. 2 O 285/15, NVwZ 2017, 734. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1125. OLG Hamm, Luciano Lliuya ./. RWE AG, Hinweis- und Beweisbeschluss vom 30.11.2017, Az. 5 U 15/17, ZUR 2018, 118. Zitiert als: Lliuya ./. RWE. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1126. OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, Sofortprogramm Klimaschutz, Urteil vom 30.11.2023, Az. 11 A 11.22, ZUR 2024, 300. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1127. VG Berlin, Greenpeace ./. Bundesregierung, Urteil vom 31.10.2019, Az. 10 K 412.18, ZUR 2020, 160. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1128. Andere nationale Verfahren Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1129. Vereinigtes Königreich, Court of Appeal, Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 13.01.1977, 2 WLR 356 (1977). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1130. Schweiz, Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz ./. Bundesrat u.a., 25.04.2017 (Verfügung). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1131. Niederlande, Gerechtshof Den Haag, Stichting Urgenda ./. de Staat der Nederlande (Ministrie van Infrastructuur en Milieu), 09.10.2018, Rs. 200.178.245/01. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1132. Vereinigtes Königreich, High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), In re Sidebotham, ex parte Sidebotham, 14 Ch D 458 (1880). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1133. Niederlande, Hoge Raad, Stichting Urgenda ./. de Staat der Nederlanden (Ministrie van Infrastructuur en Milieu), 20.12.2019, Rs. 19/00135, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1134. Vereinigtes Königreich, House of Lords, R. (National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd) v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, 09.04.1981, [1981] 2 All ER 93. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1135. Pakistan, Lahore High Court, Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, 04.09.2015 (Order), Writ Petition No. 25501 of 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1136. Pakistan, –, Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, 25.01.2018 (Judgement), Writ Petition No. 25501 of 2015. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1137. Norwegen, Norgens Høgsterett, Natur og Ungdom ./. Staten v/Olje- og energidepartementet, 23.01.2020, HR-2020-2472-P (sak nr. 20-051052SIV-HRET). Zitiert als: Natur og Ungdom ./. Norwegen. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1138. Niederlande, Rechtbank Den Haag, Stichting Urgenda ./. de Staat der Nederlanden (Ministrie van Infrastructuur en Milieu), 24.06.2015, Rs. C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1139. Pakistan, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Mr. Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Mr. Mohd. Abdul Hague, 1963 PLD 486. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1140. Philippinen, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 101083. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1141. Belgien, Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles, ASBL Klimaatzaak / L’État Belge, 16.06.2021, 2015/4585/A. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1142. Vereinigte Königreich, United Kingdom Supreme Court, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, [2017] UKSC 5. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1143. Internationale Verfahren Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1144. Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, 09.04.2024, Application No. 53600/20. Zitiert als: KlimaSeniorinnen v. Schweiz. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1145. Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, Sheila Watt-Cloutier u.a. v. United States of America, 16.11.2006, Petition No. P-1413-05. Zitiert als: Watt-Cloutier v. USA. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1146. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, 31.08.2001, IACHR Series C No. 79 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1147. International Court of Justice, Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), 22.09.1995, I.C.J. Reports 288 (1995). Zitiert als: Nuclear Tests. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1148. –, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 08.07.1996, I.C.J. Reports 226 (1996). Zitiert als: Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1149. –, Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25.09.1997, 37 I.C.J. Reports 7 (1997). Zitiert als: Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1150. –, Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 20.04.2010, I.C.J. Reports 14 (2010). Zitiert als: Pulp Mills. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1151. Permanent Court of Arbitration, Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway (The Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands), 24.05.2005, Vol. XXVII UNRIAA 35 (2005). Zitiert als: Iron Rhine. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1152. –, Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India, 20.12.2013, Vol. XXXI UNRIAA 1 (2018). Zitiert als: Indus Waters. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1153. World Trade Organisation Appelate Body, European Communities––Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 16.01.1998, WTO Docs WT/DS26/AB/R and WT/DS48/AB/R. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1154. Verfahrensdokumente Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1155. Alaska Superior Court (Anchorage Borough), Sinnok v. State (2018), Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Equitable Relief, No. 3AN-17-09910 CI, 2018 WL 7458981 (Aug. 24, 2018). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1156. BVerfG, Göppel u.a., Verfassungsbeschwerde, 23.11.2018, Az. 1 BvR 2656/18, https://sfv.de/aktuelles/klimaklage-1 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1157. –, Neubauer u.a., Verfassungsbeschwerde, 27.02.2020, Az. 1 BvR 288/20, https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/klimakrise/zweite-klimaklage-verfassungsbeschwerde (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1158. National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, Application No. 187 of 2017, Petition vom 22.03.2017, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/58dd45319f74568a83fd7977/1490896178123/13.03.22.ClimateChangePetition.pdf (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1159. U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.), Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (2020), Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Center for International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide–US), No. 18-36082, 2019 WL 1075076 (Mar. 1, 2019). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1160. –, Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (2020), Brief of Amicus Curiae Law Professors in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Answering Brief, No. 18-36082, 2019 WL 1096498 (Mar. 1, 2019). Zitiert als: Amicus Curiae Law Professors. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1161. U.S. District Court (D. Or.), Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (2016), Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Injunction, No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, 2015 WL 4747094 (Aug. 12, 2015). Zitiert als: Complaint. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1162. –, Juliana v. United States, 17 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (2016), Minutes of Proceedings, No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA, # 471 (May 13, 2021), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/611e8cf1b7cbc072541fcfa0/1629392113487/Doc+471+Minutes+of+Proceedings.pdf (Stand: 30.03.2024). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1163. –, Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (2016), Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend and File Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA, unveröffentlicht (July 16, 2021), https://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1164. Literatur Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1165. Abate, Randall S., Massachusetts v. EPA and the Future of Environmental Standing in Climate Change Litigation and Beyond, 33 William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 121–176 (2008). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1166. Abate, Randall S./Kronk, Elisabeth Ann (Hg.), Climate Change and Indigenous People: The Search for Legal Remedies, Cheltenham u.a. 2013. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1167. Abeyratne, Rehan, PN Bhagwati and the Transformation of India’s Judiciary, in: Abeyratne, Rehan/Porat, Iddo (Hg.), Towering Judges: A Comparative Study of Constitutional Judges, Cambridge 2021, S. 195–214. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1168. Abraham, Henry J., The Judicial Process, 7. Aufl., New York u.a. 1998. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1169. Abrams, Kerry/Garrett, Brandon L., Cumulative Constitutional Rights, 97 Boston University Law Review 1309–1356 (2017). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1170. Adler, Jonathan H., Stand or Deliver: Citizen Suits, Standing, and Environmental Protection, 12 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 39–84 (2001). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1171. Albert, Richard, The World’s Most Difficult Constitution to Amend?, 110 California Law Review 2005-2022 (2022). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1172. Alexandre, Michèle, The New Frontiers of Civil Rights Litigation, Durham 2019. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1173. Alogna, Ivano/Bakker, Christine/Gauci, Jean-Pierre, Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives—An Introduction, in: Alogna, Ivano/Bakker, Christine/Gauci, Jean-Pierre (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives, Leiden u.a. 2021, S. 1–30. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1174. Alpert, Peter A., Citizen Suits Under the Clean Air Act: Universal Standing for the Uninjured Private Attorney General?, 16 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 283–328 (1988). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1175. Amann, Melanie/Traufetter, Gerald, „Eine Klatsche für die Regierung – warum freut sich Peter Altmaier trotzdem?“, in: Spiegel Online, 30.04.2021, https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/peter-altmaier-warum-sich-der-minister-ueber-das-klima-urteil-des-verfassungsgerichts-freut-a-a34b59b4-d797-488b-a5ed-e828f206fe31 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1176. Ambrose, A. David, Directive Principles of State Policy and Distribution of Material Resources with Special Reference to Natural Resources - Recent Trends, 55 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 1–20 (2013). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1177. American Law Institute (Hg.), Restatement (Third) of Trusts, 2003. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1178. Amirante, Domenico, Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective: Preliminary Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India, 29 Pace Environmental Law Review 441–469 (2012). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995
  1179. Anand, A. S., Judicial Review - Judicial Activism - Need for Caution, 42 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 149–159 (2000). Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748951995

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Studien zu Staat, Recht und Verwaltung/Studies on State, Law and Administration"
Cover des Buchs: Rechtsextremismus in der Justiz?
Monographie Kein Zugriff
David Schwarzenböck
Rechtsextremismus in der Justiz?
Cover des Buchs: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover des Buchs: Verfassung, Rechtsprechung und Informationstechnologie
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Jérôme Kommer
Verfassung, Rechtsprechung und Informationstechnologie
Cover des Buchs: Förderung von Bürgerenergiegesellschaften
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Theresa Hüsch
Förderung von Bürgerenergiegesellschaften
Cover des Buchs: Das Verbot einer verfassungswidrigen Gewerkschaft
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Chantal Chassein
Das Verbot einer verfassungswidrigen Gewerkschaft

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex