@article{2026:uhm:standing_a,
title = {Standing as Barrier or Gateway: Contrasting U.S. Doctrine with Global Climate Jurisprudence},
year = {2026},
note = {This article offers a comparative case law analysis of how courts
address standing in climate litigation. Taking U.S. federal Article
III standing as a reference point, it examines how courts in various
jurisdictions confront analogous threshold questions through different
doctrinal forms, including admissibility, legal interest, victim
status, and constitutional review. Three questions recur across
jurisdictions: whether organizations may sue in a representative
capacity, whether climate harm remains legally cognizable when widely
shared, and whether threshold review is conducted through a distinct
procedural test or through a broader rights-based framework. The
article argues that attention to these differences in judicial
reasoning helps explain why similar climate claims proceed in some
courts but not in others. In doing so, it shows that the procedural
gateway to climate adjudication is shaped not only by formal doctrine
but also by how courts characterize climate harm, the claimant, and
the judicial role.},
journal = {VRÜ Verfassung und Recht in Übersee},
pages = {159--176},
author = {Uhm, Ye-Eun},
volume = {59},
number = {1}
}