Klimaschutzklagen gegen den Staat in den USA und Indien: Offenheit der Rechtsordnungen im Vergleich

LRin Dr. Antonia Papenheim

doi:10.5771/9783748951995

Summary

Strategic environmental litigation has a long-standing tradition in the United States and India. Their emissions drive global climate change. How accessible are these two common law legal systems to climate change litigation? In the U.S., climate protection lawsuits are filed in large numbers despite considerable legal obstacles, however with little success to date. In India, despite the nearly ideal legal framework, there have only been few cases with low impact. The comparison shows which aspects of the respective legal systems, especially the separation of powers, determine the justiciability of climate change. Placing the focus on India seeks to highlight the opportunities within legal systems of the Global South and render these more evident.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Edition: 1/2025
Copyright Year: 2025
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-2455-1
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-5199-5
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Studien zu Staat, Recht und Verwaltung/Studies on State, Law and Administration
Volume: 40
Language: German
Pages: 650
Product Type: Monograph

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

Bibliography (1179 entries)

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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Weinstock, Robert A., The Lorax State: Parens Patriae and the Provision of Public Goods, 109 Columbia Law Review 798–843 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Weigelt, Karsten, Haftung Privater für Beiträge zum Klimawandel (Diss. Frankfurt a.M.), Baden-Baden 2022. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Wegener, Bernhard W., Urgenda – Weltrettung per Gerichtsbeschluss?: Klimaklagen testen die Grenzen des Rechtsschutzes, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 3–13. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Wedeking, Jim, Environmental Federalism, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 117–148. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Wechsler, Herbert, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 1–35 (1959). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Weaver, R. Henry/Kysar, Douglas A., Courting Disaster: Climate Change and the Adjudication of Catastrophe, 93 Notre Dame Law Review 295–356 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Watt-Cloutier, Sheila, The Right to Be Cold: One Woman’s Story of Protecting her Culture, the Arctic and the Whole Planet, Toronto 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Wagner, Christian, Das Politische System Indiens: Eine Einführung, 2. Aufl., Wiesbaden 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Voßkuhle, Andreas, Art. 93 GG, in: Huber, Peter M./Voßkuhle, Andreas (Hg.), Grundgesetz, 3. Bd., 8. Aufl., München 2024. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Weisbrod, Burton A./Handler, Joel F./Komesar, Neil K. (Hg.), Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis, Berkeley 1978. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Volkmann, Uwe, Verfassungsänderung und Verfassungswandel: Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis von Stabilität und Dynamik im Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, JuristenZeitung 2018, S. 265–271. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Verheyen, Roda, Climate Change Damage and International Law: Prevention Duties and State Responsibility (Diss. Hamburg), Leiden 2005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Van Cleve, George, Congressional Power to Confer Broad Citizen Standing in Environmental Cases, 29 Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 10028–10042 (1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Vakil, Raeesa, Jurisdiction, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 367–385. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, Cambridge 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Zweigert, Konrad/Kötz, Hein, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiet des Privatrechts, 3. Aufl., Tübingen 1996. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Zeidler, Sophie, Klimahaftungsklagen: Die Internationale Haftung für die Folgen des Klimawandels (Diss. München), Berlin 2022. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Yoshino, Kenji, A New Birth of Freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges, 129 Harvard Law Review 147–179 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Wurman, Ilan, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment, Cambridge u.a. 2020. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Wood, Mary Christina, Protecting the Wildlife Trust: A Reinterpretation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 34 Environmental Law 605–645 (2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Winter, Steven L., The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance, 40 Stanford Law Review 1371–1516 (1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
William S. Hein & Co., Inc., HeinOnline, www.heinonline.org (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Resolutions of Collegium, https://main.sci.gov.in/collegium-resolutions (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Former Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, https://www.sci.gov.in/former-chief-justice-judges/ (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sunstein, Cass R., What’s Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries,” and Article III, 91 Michigan Law Review 163–236 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sullivan, E. Thomas (Hg.), Environmental Law Handbook, 24. Aufl., Lanham u.a. 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Strauss, Peter L., Administrative Justice in the United States, 2. Aufl., Durham 2002. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Storzer, Till Arne, Die Justiziabilität des Klima- und Umweltschutzes: Effektiver Rechtsschutz als Antwort auf strukturelle Durchsetzungsdefizite (Diss. Regensburg), Berlin 2024. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Stevenson, Dru/Eckhart, Sonny, Standing as Channeling in the Administrative Age, 53 Boston College Law Review 1357–1416 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Stein, Tine, Interessenvertretung der Natur in den USA: mit vergleichendem Blick auf die deutsche Rechtslage, Baden-Baden 2002. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Soundings and Silences, in: Dixon, Rosalind/Stone, Adrienne (Hg.), The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge 2018, S. 21–60. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Tribe, Laurence, American Constitutional Law, 1. Bd., 3. Aufl., New York 2000. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Torres, Robert, Foundational But Not Fundamental: No Right to the Environment, 31 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 175–213 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Torres, Gerald/Bellinger, Nathan, The Public Trust: The Law’s DNA, 4 Wake Forest Jounal of Law & Policy 281–317 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, A “Sense of Equity” in Environmental Justice Litigation, 44 Harvard Environmental Law Review 169–233 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Todd, Jeff, A Fighting Stance in Environmental Justice Litigation, 50 Environmental Law 557–614 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Tidmarsh, Jay/Murray, Brian J., A Theory of Federal Common Law, 100 Northwestern University Law Review 585–654 (2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Introduction to Judicial Review in India, 4 Judicial Review 126–129 (1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, „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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Thakur, Dushyant, Invoking Equity Jurisdiction of the Indian Supreme Court: Scope and Limits, 3 NLIU Law Review 97–126 (2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Terris, Bruce J., Ex Nihilo – The Supreme Court's Invention of Constitutional Standing, 45 Environmental Law 849–893 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Taylor, R. Trent, The Obsolescence of Environmental Common Law, 40 Ecology Law Currents 1–9 (2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Talib, Javaid, Constitutionalizing the Problem of Environment, 47 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 522–539 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Taj Trapezium Zone Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, http://www.ttzagra.com (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Swanegan, J. R./Pogdor, Ellen S., Overview of U.S. Law, 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, https://www.sci.gov.in/jurisdiction (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Case Status, https://www.sci.gov.in/case-status-case-no (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, International Environmental Law in Indian Courts, 7 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 21–30 (1998). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Araiza, William D., The Public Trust as an Interpretive Canon, 45 University of California Davis Law Review 693–740 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Enforcing the Equal Protection Clause: Congressional Power, Judicial Doctrine, and Constitutional Law, New York 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Atapattu, Sumudu, Human Rights Approaches to Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities, Abingdon u.a. 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Global South Approaches, in: Rajamani, Lavanya/Peel, Jacqueline (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2. Aufl., Oxford 2021, S. 183–199. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Austin, Granville, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, New Delhi 1999. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Babcock, Hope M., The Public Trust Doctrine: What a Tall Tale They Tell Essay, 61 South Carolina Law Review 393–414 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bandopadhyay, Saptarishi, Sustainable Development and Indian Environmental Jurisprudence, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 107–151. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Basu, Durga Das/Subramani, S. S., Commentary on the Constitution of India, Articles 25 to 35, 6. Bd., 9. Aufl., Gurgaon 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Baum, Lawrence, The Supreme Court, 6. Aufl., Washington, D.C. 1998. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Baviskar, Amita, Space, power and identity in the making of metropolitan Delhi, 175 International Social Science Journal 89–98 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Baxi, Upendra, Taking suffering seriously: social action litigation in the Supreme Court of India, International Commission of Jurists Review 37–49 (1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, 4 Third World Legal Studies 107–132 (1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Saint Granville’s Gospel: Reflections, 36 Economic & Political Weekly 921–930 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Rule of Law in India, 4 Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 7–25 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Postcolonial Legality: A Postscript from India, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2012, S. 178–194. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Beck, Harrison, Locating Liability for Climate Change: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Trends in Climate Jurisprudence, 50 Environmental Law 885–918 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Berger, Raoul, Standing to Sue in Public Actions: Is It a Constitutional Requirement, 78 Yale Law Journal 816–840 (1969). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Berkemann, Jörg, „Freiheitschancen über die Generationen“ (Art. 20a GG) – Intertemporaler Klimaschutz im Paradigmenwechsel, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 2021, S. 702–715. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bethge, Herbert, § 31 BVerfGG, in: Schmidt-Bleibtreu, Bruno/Klein, Franz/Bethge, Herbert (Hg.), Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz, München 2023. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Sustainable Development, in: Wolfrum, Rüdiger (Hg.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, IX. Bd., Oxford 2012, S. 716–722. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bhagwati, Prafullachandra Natwarlal, Interview with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AdgzBgNki8&t=316s (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bhansali, S. R., The Constitution of India: An Exhaustive, Critical and Analytical Commentary of the Constitution, 1. Bd., Delhi 2007. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bhatia, Ravi P., Evolution of Judicial Activism in India, 45 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 262–274 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bhuwania, Anuj, Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India, Cambridge 2017. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bickel, Alexander M., Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 Harvard Law Review 40–79 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2. Aufl., New Haven u.a. 1986. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bickenbach, Christian, Subjektiv-öffentliches Recht auf Klimaschutz? Die Erderwärmung vor den Gerichten, JuristenZeitung 2020, S. 168–177. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Blumm, Michael C./Schaffer, Lynn S., Federal Public Trust Doctrine: Misinterpreting Justice Kennedy and Illinois Central Railroad, 45 Environmental Law 399–430 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Blumm, Michael C./Wood, Mary Christina, The Public Trust Doctrine in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, 2. Aufl., Durham 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, No Ordinary Lawsuit: Climate Change, Due Process, and the Public Trust Doctrine, 67 American University Law Review 1–87 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Böhm, Isabell, Staatsklimahaftung: Die klimarechtliche Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands und der EU (Diss. Potsdam), Baden-Baden 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bradford, Gregory, Simplifying state standing: the role of sovereign interests in future climate litigation, Boston College Law Review 1065–1103 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Britz, Gabriele, Klimaschutz in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2022, S. 825–833. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Brown Weiss, Edith, In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity, Tokyo 1989. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Brownell, F. William, State Common Law of Public Nuisance in the Modern Administrative State, 24 Natural Resources & Environment 34–37 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Brownell, F. William/Boczkaj-Gonzalez, Radoslawa, Clean Air Handbook, Lanham u.a. 2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Brugger, Winfried, Einführung in das öffentliche Recht der USA, 2. Aufl., München 2001. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew, One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, 67 Duke Law Journal 481–556 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Burger, Michael/Wentz, Jessica, Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Proper Scope of NEPA Review, 41 Harvard Environmental Law Review 109–188 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Burns, William C. G./Osofsky, Hari M. (Hg.), Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches, Cambridge u.a. 2009. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Buser, Andreas, Eine allgemeine Klimaleistungsklage vor dem VG Berlin, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2020, S. 1253–1255. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Ein Grundrecht auf Klimaschutz? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen grundrechtlicher Klimaklagen in Deutschland, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2020, S. 1389–1396. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Calliess, Christian, Abstand halten: Rechtspflichten der Klimaschutzpolitik aus planetaren Grenzen, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 385–387. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Umweltpolitik im Grundgesetz, Juristische Schulung 2023, S. 1–9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cassels, Jamie, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible?, 37 American Journal of Comparative Law 495–519 (1989). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Central Empowered Committee, Constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, https://cecindia.in/ (Stand: 30.03.2024). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chakravarty, Bhaskar Kumar, Environmentalism: Indian Constitution and Judiciary, 48 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 99–105 (2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chandra, Aparna/Hubbard, William H. J./Kalantry, Sital, The Supreme Court of India: A People’s Court?, 1 Indian Law Review 145–181 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chandra, Geetanjali, Public Interest Litigation and Environmental Protection, Delhi 2005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chandrachud, Abhinav, An Independent, Colonial Judiciary: A History of the Bombay High Court during the British Raj, 1862–1947, Oxford 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Balanced Constitutionalism: Courts and Legislatures in India and the United Kingdom, New Delhi 2017. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chaturvedi, Eeshan, Climate Change Litigation: Indian Perspective, German Law Journal 2021, S. 1459–1470. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chatzinerantzis, Alexandros/Appel, Markus, Haftung für den Klimawandel, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2019, S. 881–886. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chatzinerantzis, Alexandros/Herz, Benjamin, Climate Change Litigation – Der Klimawandel im Spiegel des Haftungsrechts, Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift 2010, S. 594–598. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chemerinsky, Erwin, Substantive Due Process, 15 Touro Law Review 1501–1534 (1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The State-Created Danger Doctrine, 23 Touro Law Review 1–26 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Rational Basis Test Is Constitutional (and Desirable), 14 Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 401–416 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, 6. Aufl., New York 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chemerinsky, Erwin/Choper, Jesse H., Federal Jurisdiction, New York 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chimni, B. S., International Law Scholarship in Post-colonial India: Coping with Dualism, 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 23–52 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Choper, Jesse H., The Political Question Doctrine: Suggested Criteria, 54 Duke Law Journal 1457–1523 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
- (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Chowdhury, Rishad Ahmed, Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court, 5 NUJS Law Review 351–377 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Coghill, Ken/Sampford, Charles/Smith, Tim (Hg.), Fiduciary Duty and the Atmos-pheric Trust, Surrey u.a. 2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cohen, Harlan Grant, A Politics-Reinforcing Political Question Doctrine, Arizona State Law Journal 1–60 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Conrad, Chris, Judicial Power in the Laboratory: State Court Treatment of the One Good Plaintiff Rule, 108 Georgetown Law Journal 767–802 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cooper, Christi, YOUTH v GOV, USA 2020, https://www.youthvgovfilm.com (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cottrell, Jill, The Indian Judges’ Transfer Case, 33 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1032–1045 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cox, Roger H. J., The Liability of European States for Climate Change, 30 Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 125–135 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Due Process Challenges, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 277–302. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Standing and Environmental Law, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 195–216. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Constitutional Environmental Law, or, the Constitutional Consequences of Insisting That the Environment Is Everybody's Business, 49 Environmental Law 703–736 (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cremer, Wolfram, Verfassungskräftiger Klimaschutz nach Maßgabe völkerrechtlich verbindlicher Verpflichtungen und Ziele, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2019, S. 278–283. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cullet, Philippe/Koonan, Sujith (Hg.), Research Handbook on Law, Environment and the Global South, Cheltenham 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Curry, Ian R., Establishing Climate Change Standing: A New Approach, 36 Pace Environmental Law Review 297–331 (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Cushman, Barry, Federalism, in: Orren, Karen/Compton, John W. (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution, Cambridge 2018, S. 185–223. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dale, Tom/Carter, Vernon Gill, Topsoil and Civilization, Norman 1955. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Daly, Erin, Environmental Constitutionalism in Defense of Nature, 53 Wake Forest Law Review 667–690 (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dann, Philipp/Hanschmann, Felix, Postkoloniale Theorien, Recht und Rechtswissenschaft: Einleitung in den Schwerpunkt, Kritische Justiz 2012, S. 127–130. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Davis, Kenneth C., Standing to Challenge Governmental Action, 39 Minnesota Law Review 353–430 (1955). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Davis, Seth, The New Public Standing, 71 Stanford Law Review 1229–1304 (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dembowski, Hans/Dicke, Vera, Justiz, Zivilgesellschaft und die öffentliche Sphäre: Umweltprozesse in Kalkutta, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 2011, S. 221–242. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dernbach, John C., The Potential Meanings of a Constitutional Public Trust, 45 Environmental Law 463–518 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Deutscher Bundestag, Wissenschaftliche Dienste, Rechtliche Grundlagen und Möglichkeiten für Klima-Klagen gegen Staat und Unternehmen in Deutschland, WD 7 - 3000 - 116/16, Berlin 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Deva, Surya, Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review, 28 Civil Justice Quarterly 19–40 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Deveney, Patrick, Title, Jus Publicum, and the Public Trust: A Historical Analysis, 1 Sea Grant Law Journal 13–81 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 8. Aufl., London 1915. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dohrmann, Jona Aravind, Directive Principles of State Policy in der indischen Verfassung unter Berücksichtigung der Staatszielbestimmungen des deutschen Grundgesetzes (Diss. Heidelberg), Würzburg 2002. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dohrmann, Jona Aravind/Fischer, Alexander, Public Interest Litigation in Indien, in: Draguhn, Werner (Hg.), Indien 2001: Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Hamburg 2001, S. 145–168. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dubash, Navroz K. (Hg.), India in a Warming World: Integrating Climate Change and Development, New Delhi 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Dubinsky, Paul R., International Law in the Legal System of the United States, 58 American Journal of Comparative Law Supplement 455–478 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Eagle, Josh, Coastal Law, New York 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ehlers, Dirk, Die Klagebefugnis nach deutschem, europäischem Gemeinschafts- und U.S.-amerikanischem Recht, Verwaltungs-Archiv 1993, S. 139–177. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Eifert, Martin, Verfassungsauftrag zum freiheitsschonenden Klimaschutz: Der Klimaschutz-Beschluss des BVerfG, Juristische Ausbildung 2021, S. 1085–1098. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit: ethische, rechtliche, politische und transformative Zugänge – am Beispiel von Klimawandel, Ressourcenknappheit und Welthandel (Habil. Rostock), 2. Aufl., Baden-Baden 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Elison, Larry M./Snyder, Fritz, The Montana State Constitution, Westport 2001. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Elliott, Heather, The Functions of Standing, 61 Stanford Law Review 459–517 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Elshorst, David, Bürgervollzugsklagen: Die Durchsetzung von Umweltrecht gegenüber Anlagenbetreibern durch Private in den USA und Deutschland (Diss. Bayreuth), Berlin 2002. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review, Cambridge 1980. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Endicott, Timothy, The Coxford Lecture: Arbitrariness, 27 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 49–72 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ewing, Keith, Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty, 80 Modern Law Review 711–726 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Fallon, Richard H., The Dynamic Constitution: An Introduction to American Constitutional Law and Practice, 2. Aufl., Cambridge u.a. 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Faure, Michael G./Peeters, Marjan (Hg.), Climate Change Liability, Cheltenham u.a. 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Fellenberg, Frank, Rechtsschutz als Instrument des Klimaschutzes – ein Zwischenstand, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2022, S. 913–920. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Fletcher, William A., The Structure of Standing, 98 Yale Law Journal 221–292 (1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Frank, Richard M., The Public Trust Doctrine: Assessing Its Recent Past & Charting Its Future, 45 University of California Davis Law Review 665–691 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Staatliche Klimaschutzpflichten – „Soft Law“, „Due Diligence“ und „Untermaßverbot“, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2016, S. 1599–1600. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Störerhaftung für Klimaschäden?, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2017, S. 664–669. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Frankenberg, Gunter, Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law, 26 Harvard International Law Journal 411–456 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Stranger than Paradise: Identity & Politics in Comparative Law, Utah Law Review 259-274 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Freer, Richard D., Introduction to Civil Procedure, New York 2005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Friedman, Barry, The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part One: The Road to Judicial Supremacy, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 333–433 (1998). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Friedman, Lawrence M., A History of American Law, 4. Aufl., New York 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Friedrich, Lutz, Gemeinwohl vor Gericht: Chancen und Risiken öffentlich-rechtlicher „Public Interest Litigation“, Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 2021, S. 726–735. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gadbois, Jr., George H., Judges of the Supreme Court of India: 1950–1989, Cambridge 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gafoor, K. A. Abdul, Human Rights: Right to Life, 1 Rajagiri Journal of Social Development 45–60 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gardbaum, Stephen, The Myth and the Reality of American Constitutional Exceptionalism, 107 Michigan Law Review 391–466 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Horizontal Effects, in: Choudhry, Sujit/Khosla, Madhav/Mehta, Pratab Bhanu (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, Oxford 2016, S. 600–613. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Garner, Bryan A. (Hg.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 11. Aufl., St. Paul 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gerrard, Michael B./Freeman, Jody (Hg.), Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 2. Aufl., Chicago 2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gesellschaft für Umweltrecht (Hg.), Dokumentation zur 44. Wissenschaftlichen Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Umweltrecht e.V.: Leipzig 2021, Berlin 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ghosh, Shibani, Introduction, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 1–17. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Procedural Environmental Rights in Indian Law, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 55–103. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Law, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 230–270. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Litigating Climate Change in India, 114 AJIL Unbound 45–50 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Climate Litigation in India, in: Sindico, Francesco/Mbengue, Makane Moïse (Hg.), Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects, Cham 2021, S. 347–367. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gill, Gitanjali Nain, Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal and Expert Members, 5 Transnational Environmental Law 175–205 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Environmental Justice in India: The National Green Tribunal, Abingdon u.a. 2017. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Glicksman, Robert L./Markell, David L./Buzbee, William W./u.a., Environmental Protection: Law and Policy, 8. Aufl., New York 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Atlas, www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gradoni, Lorenzo/Mantovani, Marina, Youth-Led Climate Change Litigation: Crossing the North-South Divide, Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2023, S. 274–298. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Graser, Alexander, Strategic Litigation: Ein Verstehensversuch, in: (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019, S. 37–41. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Graser, Alexander/Helmrich, Christian (Hg.), Strategic Litigation: Begriff und Praxis, Baden-Baden 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Green, David S., Massachusetts v. EPA Without Massachusetts: Private Party Standing in Climate Change Litigation, 36 University of California 35–63 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Grey, Thomas C., The Constitution as Scripture, 37 Standford Law Review 1–26 (1984–1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Groß, Thomas, „Zwei Jahre Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts“, in: Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/zwei-jahre-klimabeschluss-des-bundesverfassungsgerichts (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Grove, Tara Leigh, When Can a State Sue the United States?, 101 Cornell Law Review 851–899 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gupta, Subhash Chandra, Supreme Court of India: An Instrument of Socio-Legal Advancement, New Delhi 1995. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hahn, Lisa, Strategische Prozessführung: Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsklärung, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 2019, S. 5–32. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hall, Caleb, A Right Most Dear: The Case for a Constitutional Environmental Right, 30 Tulane Environmental Law Journal 85–110 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hammersley, Mia, The Right to a Healthy and Stable Climate: Fundamental or Unfounded?, 7 Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 117–145 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hause, Malcolm E., India and the Commonwealth of Nations: A Study in Contemporary Political Thought, 23 Indian Journal of Political Sciences 225–239 (1962). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hay, Peter, US-Amerikanisches Recht, 7. Aufl., München 2020. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hegde, V. G., Indian Courts and International Law, 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 53–77 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Henkin, Louis, Is There a Political Question Doctrine?, 85 Yale Law Journal 597–625 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Holt, James Clarke, Magna Charta, 3. Aufl., Cambridge 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Huffman, James L., Speaking of Inconvenient Truths–A History of the Public Trust Doctrine, 18 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 1–104 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Protecting the Great Lakes: The Allure and Limitations of the Public Trust Doctrine, 93 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 239–272 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Public Trust Doctrine: A Brief (and True) History, 10 George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law 15–32 (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Humphreys, Stephen (Hg.), Human Rights and Climate Change, Cambridge u.a. 2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ick-June, Yoon, Environmental Justice and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2 Yonsei Law Journal 51–63 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
IndianKanoon.org, IndianKanoon, https://indiankanoon.org (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Iyer, Ramaswamy R., Linking of Rivers: Judicial Activism or Error?, 37 Economic & Political Weekly 4595–4596 (2002). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Jackson, Vicki C., Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality, 124 Yale Law Journal 3094–3197 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Jaffe, Jill, The Political Question Doctrine: An Update in Response to Recent Case Law, 38 Ecology Law Quarterly 1033–1066 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Jaffe, Louis J., Standing to Secure Judicial Review: Private Actions, 75 Harvard Law Review 255–305 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Standing to Secure Judicial Review: Public Actions, 74 Harvard Law Review 1265–1314 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Jain, M. P./Jain, S. N./Singh, Guru Prasanna/Aradhe, Alok, Principles of Administrative Law, 5. Aufl., New Delhi u.a. 2007. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Jaswal, Paramjit S., Directive Principles Jurisprudence and Socio-Economic Justice in India, New Delhi 1996. Zitiert als: Directive Principles Jurisprudence. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Junker, Kirk W., Legal Culture in the United States: An Introduction, Abingdon u.a. 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kagan, Robert A., Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, 2. Aufl., Cambridge u.a. 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kahl, Wolfgang/Weller, Marc-Philippe (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook, München u.a. 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kaleck, Wolfgang, Mit Recht gegen die Macht: Unser Kampf für die Menschenrechte, Berlin 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kaplin, William A., American Constitutional Law: An Overview, Analysis, and Integration, Durham 2004. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Katyal, Neil Kumar, Trump v. Hawaii: How the Supreme Court Simultaneously Overturned and Revived Korematsu, 128 Yale Law Journal Forum 641–656 (2018-2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kavuri, Sudha/Ramanathan, Anjana, Climate Change Litigation: Chronicals from the Global South – A Comparative Study, 28 Comparative Law Review 169–199 (2022). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kerstensteiner, Nina, Tiere vor Gericht? Strukturelles Durchsetzungsdefizit im Tierschutzrecht und die Rolle der strategischen Prozessführung (Diss. Regensburg), Tübingen 2024. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kessler, Amalia D., Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800–1877, New Haven u.a. 2017. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Khan, Sheeraz Latif A., Justice Bhagwati on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, New Delhi 1996. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kischel, Uwe, Comparative Law, Oxford 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Klass, Alexandra B., Modern Public Trust Principles: Recognizing Rights and Integrating Standards, 82 Notre Dame Law Review 699–754 (2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kloepfer, Michael/Wiedmann, Jan-Louis, Die Entscheidung des BVerfG zum Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2021, S. 1333–1340. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Knütel, Rolf/Kupisch, Berthold/Lohsse, Sebastian/Rüfner, Thomas (Hg.), Corpus Iuris Civilis: Die Institutionen, 4. Aufl., Heidelberg u.a. 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kolsky, Elizabeth, Colonial Justice in British India, Cambridge 2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kramer, Larry D., Putting the Politics Back into the Political Safeguards of Federalism, 100 Columbia Law Review 215–293 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine, New Delhi 2009. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Krotoszynski, Ronald J., Fundamental Property Rights, 85 Georgetown Law Journal 555–625 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kulke, Hermann/Rothermund, Dietmar, A History of India, 6. Aufl., London 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kumar, Parul/Naik, Abhayraj, India’s Domestic Climate Policy is Fragmented and Lacks Clarity, 54 (Issue 7) Economic & Political Weekly (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, „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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lagarre, Santiago, The Historical Background of the Police Power, 9 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 745–796 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lange, Frederike Valerie, Grundrechtsbindung des Gesetzgebers: eine rechtsvergleichende Studie zu Deutschland, Frankreich und den USA (Diss. Würzburg), Tübingen 2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
LaTourette, Shawn M., Global Climate Change: A Political Question, 40 Rutgers Law Journal 219–284 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lawrence, Peter, Justice for Future Generations: Climate Change and International Law, Cheltenham u.a. 2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lazarus, Richard J., Changing Conceptions of Property and Sovereignty in Natural Resources: Questioning the Public Trust Doctrine, 71 Iowa Law Review 631–716 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future, 94 Cornell Law Review 1153-1233 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Judicial Missteps, Legislative Dysfunction, and the Public Trust Doctrine: Can Two Wrongs Make It Right, 45 Environmental Law 1139–1162 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ledewitz, Bruce, Establishing a Federal Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment in Us and in Our Posterity, 68 Mississippi Law Journal 565–673 (1998). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Levinson, Rosalie Berger, Time to Bury the Shocks-the-Conscience Test, 13 Chapman Law Review 307–356 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lin, Jolene/Kysar, Douglas A. (Hg.), Climate Change Litigation in the Asia Pacific, Cambridge 2020. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lin, Jolene/Peel, Jacqueline, Litigating Climate Change in the Global South, Oxford 2024. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Long, Andrew, Standing and Consensus: Globalism in Massachusetts v. EPA, 23 Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 73–123 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Lord, Richard/Goldberg, Silke/Rajamani, Lavanya/Brunnée, Jutta (Hg.), Climate Change Liability: Transnational Law and Practice, Cambridge u.a. 2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Magill, Elisabeth, Standing for the Public, 95 Virginia Law Review 1131–1200 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Manus, Peter, Justice Scalia’s Environmental Legacy: A Contextual Analysis, 35 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 265–320 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Mate, Manoj, The Rise of Judicial Governance in the Supreme Court of India, 33 Boston University International Law Journal 169–222 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
May, James R., Climate Change, Constitutional Consignment, and the Political Question Doctrine, 85 Denver University Law Review 919–959 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Political Question Doctrine, in: May, James R. (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011, S. 217–241. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
- (Hg.), Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law, Chicago 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
May, James R./Daly, Erin, Global Environmental Constitutionalism, New York 2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Mechler, Reinhard/Bouwer, Laurens M./Schinko, Thomas/u.a. (Hg.), Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options, Cham 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Mehta, Dhvani, The Environmental Rule of Law in India (Diss. Oxford), Oxford 2017. Zitiert als: Environmental Rule of Law. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Meßerschmidt, Klaus, Der Beitrag des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Konstitutionalisierung des Umwelt- und Klimaschutzrechts, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 2023, S. 1109–1119. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Meyer, Stephan, Grundrechtsschutz in Sachen Klimawandel, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2020, S. 894–900. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, „India’s Stand at COP-26“, Pressemitteilung, 03.02.2022, New Delhi, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1795071 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Möllers, Christoph/Weinberg, Nils, Die Klimaschutzentscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, JuristenZeitung 2021, S. 1069–1087. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Murphy, Richard, Abandoning Standing: Trading a Rule of Access for a Rule of Deference, 60 Administrative Law Review 943–993 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Murphy, Walter F./Fleming, James E./Barber, Sotirios A./Macedo, Stephan, American Constitutional Interpretation, 6. Aufl., St. Paul 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Nagdeman, David A., Sovereign Ephemera: State Standing against the Federal Government for Injuries to Quasi-Sovereign Interests, Temple Law Review 53–95 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Narain, Vrinda, Postcolonial Constitutionalism in India: Complexities & Contradictions, 25 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 107–133 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
National Informatics Centre, Government of India, States and Union Territories, https://knowindia.gov.in/states-uts (Stand: 30.03.2024). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Nichol, Gene R., Justice Scalia, Standing, and Public Interest Litigation, 42 Duke Law Journal 1141–1169 (1993). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Noorani, A. G., „Behind the ‘basic structure’ doctrine“, in: Frontline, 28.04.2001, https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/article30159673.ece (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Nowak, John E./Rotunda, Ronald D., Constitutional Law, 6. Aufl., St. Paul 2000. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
O’Loughlin, Michael, Understanding the Public Trust Doctrine through Due Process, 58 Boston College Law Review 1321–1354 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Oakes, Anne Richardson, Judicial Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine: A Powerful Tool of Environmental Protection?, 7 Transnational Environmental Law 469–489 (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Office of the Law Revision Council, United States Code, U.S. House of Representatives, https://uscode.house.gov/browse.xhtml (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Osofsky, Hari M., The Geography of Emerging Global South Climate Change Litigation, 114 AJIL Unbound 61–66 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Youth v. Gov, https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pacelle, Richard L., Jr., The Supreme Court in a Separation of Powers System: The Nation’s Balance Wheel, 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Patel, Bimal N., The State Practice of India and the Development of International Law: Dynamic Interplay between Foreign Policy and Jurisprudence, Leiden 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Peel, Jacqueline, Precaution, in: Rajamani, Lavanya/Peel, Jacqueline (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, 2. Aufl., Oxford 2021, S. 302–334. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Peel, Jacqueline/Lin, Jolene, Transnational Climate Litigation: The Contribution of the Global South, 113 American Journal of International Law 679–726 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Peel, Jacqueline/Osofsky, Hari M., Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy, Cambridge u.a. 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pfander, James E., Scalia’s Legacy: Originalism and Change in the Law of Standing, 6 British Journal of American Legal Studies 85–107 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pichl, Maximilian, Die Verrechtlichung der Welt: Ansätze einer postkolonialen Rechtstheorie, Kritische Justiz 2012, S. 131–143. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pöttker, Erik, Klimahaftungsrecht: Die Haftung für die Emissionen von Treibhausgasen in Deutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (Diss. Potsdam), Tübingen 2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Prasad, Lal Bahadur, Indian Political System and Law, New Delhi 2005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Rahdert, Mark C., Comparative Constitutional Advocacy, American University Law Review 553–666 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability, 19 Journal of Environmental Law 293–321 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Precautionary Principle, in: Ghosh, Shibani (Hg.), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles, Hyderabad 2019, S. 192–229. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ramsey, Michael D., Beyond the Text: Justice Scalia’s Originalism in Practice, 92 Notre Dame Law Review 1945–1976 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Razzaque, Jona, Application of Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Cases, 13 Journal of Environmental Law 221–234 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Den Hague u.a. 2004. Zitiert als: Public Interest Environmental Litigation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Redish, Martin H., Judicial Review and the Political Question, 79 Northwestern University Law Review 1031–1061 (1984-1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Redmond, Patrick, The Public Trust in Wildlife: Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back, 49 249–311 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Richers, Dominik, Postmoderne Theorie in der Rechtsvergleichung, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 2007, S. 509–540. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ritthaler-Andree, Ronja, Klimagerechtigkeit und Klimaschutzpolitik: Die Verhandlungspositionen der USA, Chinas und Indiens von 2009–2018 (Diss. Heidelberg), Baden-Baden 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Robinson, Nick, Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court, 8 Washington University Global Studies Law Review 1–69 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Structure Matters: The Impact of Court Structure on the Indian and U.S. Supreme Court, 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 173–208 (2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Rodríguez-Garavito, César, Human Rights: The Global South’s Route to Climate Litiagation, 114 AJIL Unbound 40–44 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
- (Hg.), Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action, Cambridge 2022. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Roesler, Shannon M., State Standing to Challenge Federal Authority in the Modern Administrative State, 91 Washington Law Review 637–702 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, State-Created Environmental Dangers and Substantive Due Process, 73 Florida Law Review 685–746 (2021). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Rosanvallon, Pierre, Counter-democracy: politics in an age of distrust, Cambridge 2008. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
- (Hg.), A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Cambridge 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Rosencranz, Armin/Lélé, Sharachchandra, Supreme Court and India’s Forests, Economic & Political Weekly 11–14 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Rotunda, Ronald D./Nowak, John E., Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, 1. Bd., 2. Aufl., St. Paul 1992. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Roy, Alpana, Postcolonial Theory and Law: A Critical Introduction, 29 Adelaide Law Review 315–357 (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ruddy, Samuel H., Finding a Constitutional Home for the Public Trust Doctrine, 43 Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal 139–162 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, A Short History of the Public Trust Doctrine and Its Intersection with Private Water Law, 38 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 135–206 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Climate Change Litigation Database, http://climatecasechart.com (Stand: 01.11.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Saharay, Madhusudan, Adoption of Foreign Doctrines by the Supreme Court: In Interpretation of the Constitution, Kolkata u.a. 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sahasranaman, P. B., Handbook of Environmental Law, New Delhi 2009. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Nationale Gerichte im Klimaschutzvölkerrecht: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum Pariser Übereinkommen (Diss. Berlin), Baden-Baden 2022. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Salzman, James/Thompson, Jr., Barton H., Environmental Law and Policy, St. Paul 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sands, Philippe, Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future in International Law, 28 19-35 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sands, Philippe/Peel, Jacqueline/Fabra, Adriana/MacKenzie, Ruth, Principles of International Environmental Law, 4. Aufl., Cambridge 2018. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Saryal, Rajnish, Climate Change Policy of India: Modifying the Environment, 38 South Asia Research 1–19 (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sathe, S. P., Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 29–107 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Saurer, Johannes, Strukturen gerichtlicher Kontrolle im Klimaschutzrecht - Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse, Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2018, S. 679–686. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sax, Joseph L., The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Michigan Law Review 471–566 (1970). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine from its Historical Shackles, 14 University of California Davis Law Review 185–194 (1980). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Scalia, Antonin, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk University Law Review 881–900 (1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Schack, Haimo, Einführung in das US-amerikanische Zivilprozessrecht, München 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Scharpf, Fritz, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?, Oxford 1999. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Scharpf, Fritz W., Grenzen der richterlichen Verantwortung: Die political-question-Doktrin in der Rechtsprechung des amerikanischen Supreme Court (Diss. Freiburg), Karlsruhe 1965. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Judicial Review and the Political Question: A Functional Analysis, 75 Yale Law Journal 517–597 (1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Schlacke, Sabine, Überindividueller Rechtsschutz: Phänomenologie und Systematik überindividueller Klagebefugnisse im Verwaltungs- und Gemeinschaftsrecht, insbesondere am Beispiel des Umweltrechts (Habil. Rostock), Tübingen 2008. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Klimaschutzrecht – Ein Grundrecht auf intertemporale Freiheitssicherung, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2021, S. 912–917. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Schmidt-Aßmann, Eberhard, Das Verwaltungsrecht der Vereingten Staaten von Amerika: Grundlagen und Grundzüge aus deutscher Sicht, Baden-Baden 2021. Zitiert als: US-Verwaltungsrecht. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Schultz, David, Constitutional Precedent in US Supreme Court Reasoning, Cheltenham u.a. 2022. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Schusser, Fabian, Judicial Activism in a Comparative Perspective: The Supreme Court of India vs. the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Diss. Heidelberg), Baden-Baden 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Segal, Jeffrey A./Spaeth, Harold J./Benesh, Sara C., The Supreme Court in the American Legal System, New York 2005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Seidenfeld, Mark, Revisiting Congressional Delegation of Interpretive Primacy as the Foundation for Chevron Deference, 24 Supreme Court Economic Review 3–40 (2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sen, Ronojoy, Walking a Tightrope: Judicial Activism and Indian Democracy, 8 India Review 63–80 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sen, Sarbani, The ‘Public Interest’ in India: Contestation and Confrontation before the Supreme Court, 60 Diogenes 27–44 (2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Setzer, Joana/Benjamin, Lisa, Climate Change Litigation in the Global South: Filling in Gaps, 114 AJIL Unbound 56–60 (2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Shaban, Abdul, Hinduism, Hindutva, and ideology, in: Haynes, Jeffrey (Hg.), Routledge handbook of religion, politics and ideology, Abingdon 2021, S. 342–355. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sindico, Francesco/Mbengue, Makane Moïse (Hg.), Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects, Berlin 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Singh, Mahendra P./Kumar, Niraj, The Indian Legal System: An Enquiry, Delhi 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Singh, Parmanand, Promises and Perils of Public Interest Litigation in India, 52 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 172–188 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sisk, Gregory C., Litigation with the federal government, St. Paul 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sitapati, Vinay, The Impact of the Indian Supreme Court, 41 India International Centre Quarterly 52–61 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Quellen- und Literaturverzeichnis Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Normen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
USA Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1779, ratifiziert und in Kraft getreten am 25.10.1780. Zitiert als: Massachusetts Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Alien Torts Statute, 1789, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Constitution of the State of Texas, 1876, in Kraft getreten am 15.02.1876, zuletzt geändert am 07.05.2022. Zitiert als: Texas Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Constitution of the State of Washington, 1889, ratifiziert am 01.10.1889, zuletzt geändert am 06.11.2007. Zitiert als: Washington Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1968, in Kraft getreten am 23.04.1968, zuletzt geändert am 18.05.2021. Zitiert als: Pennsylvania Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Constitution of Illinois, 1970, verabschiedet am 15.12.1970. Zitiert als: Illinois Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution of the State of Montana, 1972, angenommen am 22.03.1972, ratifiziert am 06.06.1972. Zitiert als: Montana Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution of the State of Hawai’i, 1978, angenommen am 07.11.1978. Zitiert als: Hawai’i Constitution. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
National Climate Program Act, 1978, 17.09.1978, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2901–2908, 92 Stat. 601, Pub. L. 95-367. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gobal Climate Protection Act, 1987, 15 U.S.C. § 2901, 101 Stat. 1407, 100-204. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Global Change Research Act, 1990, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2921–2961, 104 Stat. 3096, Pub. L. 101-606. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Power Plan, 2015, 23.10.2015, in Kraft getreten am 22.12.2015, 80 Fed. Reg. 64662. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 2019, 19.06.2019, in Kraft getreten am 06.09.2019, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, NAAQS Table, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (Stand: 30.03.2024). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Resolution 97, 2005, bill introduced on Feb. 15, 2005, H.R. Res. 97, 109th Congress. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Resolution 92, 2005, bill introduced and referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Mar. 20, 2005, S. Res. 92, 109th Congress. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Indien Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Gesetz vom 21.03.1908, Act No. 5 of 1908. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution of India, 1949, in der Fassung vom 28.09.2023. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The All-India Services Act, 1951, Gesetz vom 29.10.1951, Act No. 61 of 1951. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, in Kraft getreten am 18.06.1951. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, in Kraft getreten am 22.07.1971. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, in Kraft getreten am 05.11.1971. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Gesetz vom 09.09.1972, Act No. 53 of 1972. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Gesetz vom 25.01.1974, Act No. 2 of 1974. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Gesetz vom 23.03.1974, Act No. 6 of 1974. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, in Kraft getreten am 18.12.1976. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, in Kraft getreten am 30.04.1979. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Gesetz vom 25.10.1980, Act No. 69 of 1980. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Gesetz vom 29.03.1981, Act No. 14 of 1981. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Gesetz vom 23.05.1986, Act No. 29 of 1986. Zitiert als: EPA. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, in Kraft getreten am 24.04.1993. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Gesetz vom 05.02.2003, Act No. 18 of 2003. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, Gesetz vom 29.12.2006, Act No. 2 of 2007. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Gesetz vom 02.06.2010, Act No. 19 of 2010. Zitiert als: NGT Act. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, in Kraft getreten am 31.12.2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019, Gesetz vom 09.08.2019, Act No. 37 of 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, Gesetz vom 13.08.2021, Act No. 33 of 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, in Kraft getreten am 28.09.2023. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ministry of Environment and Forest, The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, Bekanntmachung vom 14.09.2006, S.O. 1533 (E). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, The Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2015, Bekanntmachung vom 07.12.2015, S.O. 3305(E). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, Bekanntmachung vom 18.01.2019, G.S.R. 37 (E). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Sonstige nationale Normen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Bangladesch, Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 1972, in der Fassung des Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 2018. Zitiert als: Constitution of Bangladesh. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pakistan, The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in der Fassung vom 31.05.2018. Zitiert als: Constitution of Pakistan. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Nepal, The Constitution of Nepal, 2015, in der Fassung vom 20.09.2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Internationale Normen Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 24.10.1945, San Francisco 1945. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
United Nations, –, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution 70/1, 15.10.2015, UN-Dok. A/RES/70/1, 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Gerichtsverfahren Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
USA Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Alaska Superior Court (Anchorage Borough), Sinnok v. State, No. 3AN-17-09910 CI, 2018 WL 7501030 (Ala. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Alaska Supreme Court, Kanuk v. State, 335 P.3d 1088 (Ala. 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Sagoonick v. State, 503 P.3d 777 (Ala. 2022). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Arizona Court of Appeals, Butler ex rel. Peshlakai v. Brewer, No. 1 CA-CV 12-0347, 2013 WL 1091209 (Ariz. App. Mar. 14, 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
California Supreme Court, Marks v. Whitney, 491 P.2d 374 (Cal. 1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Florida Circuit Court (Leon County), Reynolds v. State, No. 2018-CA-819, 2020 WL 3410846 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 9, 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Hawai’i Supreme Court, In Re Water Use Permit Applications, 9 P.3d 409 (Haw. 2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Iowa Court of Appeals, Filippone v. State Dep’t of Nat. Res., No. 12-0444, 2013 WL 988627 (Iow. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Louisiana Supreme Court, Morgan v. Negodich, 3 So. 636 (La. 1887). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Maryland Court of Appeals, Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Mayor of Ocean City, 332 A.2d 630 (Md. 1975). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission, 215 N.E.2d 114 (Mass. 1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Sacco v. Dep’t of Public Works, 227 N.E.2d 478 (Mass. 1967). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Robbins v. Dep’t of Public Works, 244 N.E.2d 577 (Mass. 1969). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Kain v. Dep’t of Envt’l Prot., 49 N.E.3d 1124 (Mass. 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Minnesota Court of Appeals, Aronow v. State, No. A12-0585, 2012 WL 4476642 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Mississippi High Court of Errors and Appeals, Morgan v. Reading, 1844 WL 3217, 11 Miss. 366 (Miss. 1844). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Magnolia v. Marshall, 1860 WL 4829, 39 George (Miss. 1860). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Montana Supreme Court, Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 988 P 2d. 1236 (Mont. 1999). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Park Cty. Envtl. Council v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 477 P.3d 288 (Mont. 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Held v. State, DA23-0575, 2024 WL 5151077 (Mont. Dec. 18, 2024). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
New Jersey Supreme Court, Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1 (N.J. 1821). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Gough v. Bell, 22 N.J.L. 441 (N.J. 1850). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
New Mexico Court of Appeals, Sanders-Reed v. Martinez, 350 P.3d 1221 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Oregon Circuit Court (Lane County), Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, No. 16-11-09273, 2012 WL 10205018 (Or. Cir. Ct. Apr. 5, 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chernaik v. Brown, No. 16-11-09273, 2015 WL 12591229 (Or. Cir. Ct. May 11, 2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Oregon Court of Appeals, Chernaik v. Kitzhaber, 328 P.3d 799 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chernaik v. Brown, 436 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Oregon Supreme Court, Chernaik v. Brown, 475 P.3d 68 (Or. 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 147 A.3d 536 (Pa. 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Texas Court of Appeals (Austin), Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality v. Bonser-Lain, 438 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App. 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Texas Supreme Court, State v. Balli, 190 S.W.2d 71 (Tex. 1944). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Circuit Court (D.N.J.), Stockton v. Baltimore, 32 F. 9 (C.C. N.J. 1887). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Connecticut v. American Electronic Power Co. (AEP), 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir.), Ely v. Velde, 451 F. 2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Cir.), Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 607 F.3d 1049 (5th Cir. 2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Court of Appeals (8th Cir.), Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.), Carnessale v. U.S. Senators, 952 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, L. W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Center for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Campbell v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. and Health Services, 671 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobile Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Washington Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Juliana v. United States, 884 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.), American Jewish Congress v. Vance, 575 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy, 561 Fed. App’x. 7 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (D. Or.), Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (D.D.C.), Fed. Employees for Non-Smokers’ Rights v. United States, 446 F. Supp. 181 (D.D.C. 1978). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. Jackson, 863 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (E.D. Mich.), Lake v. City of Southgate, No. 16-10251, 2017 WL 767879 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (E.D. Pa.), Clean Air Council v. United States, 362 F. Supp. 3d 237 (E.D. Pa. 2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (E.D.N.Y.), In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 475 F. Supp 928 (E.D.N.Y. 1979). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.), City of Alameda v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 635 F. Supp. 1447 (N.D. Cal. 1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, California v. General Motors Corp., No. C06-05755 MJJ, 2007 WL 2726871 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, SF Chapter of A. Philip Radolph Institute v. EPA, No. C 07-04936 CRB, 2008 WL 859985 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (N.D. Ohio), Pinkney v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 375 F. Supp 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 2d 849 (S.D. Miss. 2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex.), Tanner v. Armco Steel Corp., 340 F. Supp 532 (S.D. Tex. 1972). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, City of New York v. BP P.L.C., 325 F. Supp. 3d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1824). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469 (1833). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1887). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 573 (1896). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270 (1902). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lochner v. City of New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Pacific States Telefone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 247 U.S. 302 (1918). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U.S. 51 (1923). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Appleby v. City of New York, 271 U.S. 364 (1926). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470 (1940). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (1944). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 552 (1946). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Republic of Natural Gas v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62 (1948). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, South v. Peters, 339 U.S. 276 (1950). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Poe v. Ullmann, 367 U.S. 497 (1961). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Ass’n of Data Processing Service Organisations. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (1972). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Cousins v. Wigonda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Maine, 420 U.S. 515 (1975). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, U.S. 636 (1975). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (1978). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981). Zitiert als: Milwaukee II. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Plyler v. Doe, 475 U.S. 202 (1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chandha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lehr v. Robinson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Clark v. Jeter, 456 U.S. 461 (1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (1988). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty., 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Dep’t of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 528 U.S. 833 (1998). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2005). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. (2008). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (2010). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, American Electronic Power Co. (AEP) v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, PPL Montana v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 569 U.S. 1000 (2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Alec L. ex rel. Loorz v. McCarthy, 574 U.S. 1047 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 573 U.S. 302 (2014). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1059 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. __ (2017), 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. __ (2018), 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. __ (2018), 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. __ (2018), 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, United States v. U.S. District Court for District of Oregon (Juliana), 139 S. Ct. 1 (Mem) (2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. __ (2019), 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. __ (2019), 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. __ (2021), 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 142 S. Ct. 418 (Mem) (2021). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. __ (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 597 U.S. __ (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. __ (2023), 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Juliana v. United States, Docket Number 24-298, 604 U.S. __ (2024) (U.S. Order List Nov 12, 2024). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Washington Court of Appeals, Svitak v. State, No. 69710-2-I, 2013 WL 6632124 (Wash. App. Dec. 13, 2013). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Foster v. State Dep’t of Ecology, No. 75374–6–I, 2017 WL 3868481 (Wash. App. Sept. 5, 2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Aji P. ex rel. Piper v. State, 480 P.3d 438 (Wash. App. 2021). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Foster v. State Dep’t of Ecology, No. 14-2-25295-1 SEA, 2016 WL 11359473 (Wash. Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Aji P. ex rel. Piper v. State, No. 18-2-04448-1, 2018 WL 3978310 (Wash. Sup. Ct. Aug. 14, 2018). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Washington Supreme Court, Aji P. ex rel. Piper v. State, 497 P.3d 350 (Table), No. 99564-8, 198 Wash.2d 1025 (Wash. 2021). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Indien Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Andra Pradesh High Court, T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corp of Hyderabad, (1987) AIR (AP) 171. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Kerala High Court, Perumatty Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala, 16.12.2003, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 34292 of 2003, (2004) 1 KLT 731. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Madras High Court, A. Periyakaruppan v. The Principal Secretary to the Government, 19.04.2022, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18636 of 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), Jaya Prakash Dabral v. Ministry of Environment & Forest, 14.12.2011, Original Application No. 12 of 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Vimal Bhai v. Ministry of Environment & Forest, 14.12.2011, Appeal No. 5 of 2011. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Western Zone Bench), Betty C. Alvares v. State of Goa, 14.02.2014, Original Application No. 63 of 2012. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Tribunal At Its Own Motion v. Ministry of Environment, 04.04.2014, Original Application No. 16 of 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 17.07.2014, Miscellaneous Application No. 182 of 2014. Zitiert als: Wilfred J. I. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, 23.07.2015, Original Application No. 498 of 2014. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Kallpavalli Vrishka Pempakamdarula Paraspara Sahayaka Shakara Sangam Ltd. v. Union of India, 25.08.2015, Original Application No. 92 of 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India, 07.07.2015, Original Application No. 37 of 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Wilfred J. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 02.09.2016, Original Application No. 74 of 2014. Zitiert als: Wilfred J. II. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity v. Union of India, 08.12.2017, Original Application No. 677 of 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Sunil Dahiya v. Union of India, 17.01.2018, Original Application No. 315 of 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Mahendra Pandey v. Union of India, 08.01.2019, Original Application No. 470 of 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
– (Principal Bench), Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, 15.01.2019, Original Application No. 187 of 2017. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Rajasthan High Court, L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, 19.09.1986, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 1986, AIR 1988 Raj 2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 19.05.1950, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 1950, (1950) SCR 88. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 18.12.1962, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 356 of 1961, (1962) 1 SCR 332. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 30.10.1964, Civil Wirt Petition No. 31 of 1964, (1964) 1 SCR 933, AIR 1965 SC 845. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth, 19.09.1977, (1977) 1 SCR 423, AIR 1977 SC 2328, (1997) 4 SCC 193. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 25.01.1978, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 1977, (1978) 2 SCR 621, 1978 AIR 597. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8143 of 1981, (1982) 1 SCR 456, 1982 AIR 1473. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Delhi Industrial Pollution). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Delhi Vehicular Pollution). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 15.02.1989, Civil Appeal No. 3187 of 1988, (1989) 1 SCC 674. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Alpha Chem v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 08.01.1991, Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1991, (1991) Supp 1 SCC 518. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnatak, 30.07.1992, (1992) 3 SCR 658, 1992 AIR 1858. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 24.10.1994, Writ Petition (Civil) 13029 of 1985. Zitiert als: M.C. Mehta (Lead Phase-Out). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 24.11.1994, Civil Appeal No. 9151 of 1994, (1994) Supp 6 SCR 78, (1995) 2 SCC 577. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 18.03.1997, Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1980, (1997) 2 SCR 1186. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 18.10.2000, (2000) Supp 4 SCR 94, AIR 2000 SC 3751, (2000) 10 SCC 664. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 30.10.2002, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 191338 of 2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, 22.08.2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2004, AIR 2006 SC 3127, (2006) 7 SCC 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 09.09.2010, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 242 of 1988, (2010) 10 SCC 96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., 07.05.2010, Civil Appeal No. 4273 of 2010, (2010) 7 SCC 1. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2011, (2011) 14 SCC 337. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Bhopal Gas Pidith Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India, 09.08.2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 1998. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, In Re: Networking of Rivers, 27.02.2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 512 of 2000, AIR 2012 SC 3787, (2012) 4 SCC 51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Chief Election Commissioner v. Jan Chaukidar, 10.07.2013, Civil Appeal No. 3040 of 2004, (2013) 7 SCC 507. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, 07.05.1988, Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014, (2014) 7 SCC 547. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, 08.08.2013, Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2013, (2014) 1 SCC 603. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Mathai @ Joby v. George, 11.01.2016, Civil Special Leave Petition No. 7105 of 2010. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 12.09.2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 11.11.2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015, AIR 2017 SC 173, (2017) 1 SCC 412. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, State of Uttarakhand v. Mohd. Salim, 07.07.2017, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16870 of 2017. Zitiert als: Mohd. Salim. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Union of India v. Lalit Miglani, 27.11.2017, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33968 of 2017. Zitiert als: Lalit Miglani. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 23.10.2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 26.09.2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. Zitiert als: Aadhaar Case. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India 29.03.2019, Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018, (2019) 15 SCC 401. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das, 09.11.2019, Civil Appeal No. 10866 of 2010. Zitiert als: M Siddiq (Babri Masjid). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, 01.04.2020, Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2016. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 03.12.2020, Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2020. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, Petition filed on 31.08.2021, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1018 of 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authorities, 05.01.2021, Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2021. Zitiert als: Rajeev Suri (Central Vista Project). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, Appeal filed on 15.04.2019, Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 15.02.2021, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 191338 of 2019). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 21.03.2024, Writ Petition (Civil) 838 of 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Uttarakhand High Court, Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, 30.03.2017, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 140 of 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, 20.03.2017, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, (2017) 2 RCR (CIVIL) 636. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Deutschland Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
BVerfG, Beschluss vom 19.02.1957, Az. 1 BvL 13/54, BVerfGE 6, 222. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Klimabeschluss, Beschluss vom 24.03.2021, Az. 1 BvR 2656/18, BVerfGE 157, 30, NJW 2021, 1723. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Landesklimaschutzgesetze, Beschluss vom 18.01.2022, Az. 1 BvR 2565/21, NJW 2022, 844. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Windenergie-Beteiligungsgesellschaften, Beschluss vom 23.03.2022, Az. 1 BvR 1187/17, BVerfGE 161, 63, NVwZ 2022, 861. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
LG Essen, Luciano Lliuya ./. RWE AG, Urteil vom 15.12.2016, Az. 2 O 285/15, NVwZ 2017, 734. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
OVG Berlin-Brandenburg, Sofortprogramm Klimaschutz, Urteil vom 30.11.2023, Az. 11 A 11.22, ZUR 2024, 300. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
VG Berlin, Greenpeace ./. Bundesregierung, Urteil vom 31.10.2019, Az. 10 K 412.18, ZUR 2020, 160. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Andere nationale Verfahren Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Vereinigtes Königreich, Court of Appeal, Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 13.01.1977, 2 WLR 356 (1977). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Schweiz, Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz ./. Bundesrat u.a., 25.04.2017 (Verfügung). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Niederlande, Gerechtshof Den Haag, Stichting Urgenda ./. de Staat der Nederlande (Ministrie van Infrastructuur en Milieu), 09.10.2018, Rs. 200.178.245/01. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Vereinigtes Königreich, High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), In re Sidebotham, ex parte Sidebotham, 14 Ch D 458 (1880). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pakistan, Lahore High Court, Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, 04.09.2015 (Order), Writ Petition No. 25501 of 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pakistan, –, Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, 25.01.2018 (Judgement), Writ Petition No. 25501 of 2015. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Pakistan, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Mr. Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Mr. Mohd. Abdul Hague, 1963 PLD 486. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Philippinen, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 101083. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Belgien, Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles, ASBL Klimaatzaak / L’État Belge, 16.06.2021, 2015/4585/A. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Vereinigte Königreich, United Kingdom Supreme Court, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, [2017] UKSC 5. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Internationale Verfahren Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, 09.04.2024, Application No. 53600/20. Zitiert als: KlimaSeniorinnen v. Schweiz. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, 31.08.2001, IACHR Series C No. 79 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgement, 25.09.1997, 37 I.C.J. Reports 7 (1997). Zitiert als: Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 20.04.2010, I.C.J. Reports 14 (2010). Zitiert als: Pulp Mills. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Verfahrensdokumente Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
BVerfG, Göppel u.a., Verfassungsbeschwerde, 23.11.2018, Az. 1 BvR 2656/18, https://sfv.de/aktuelles/klimaklage-1 (Stand: 19.01.2025). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
–, 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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Literatur Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Abate, Randall S./Kronk, Elisabeth Ann (Hg.), Climate Change and Indigenous People: The Search for Legal Remedies, Cheltenham u.a. 2013. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Abraham, Henry J., The Judicial Process, 7. Aufl., New York u.a. 1998. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Abrams, Kerry/Garrett, Brandon L., Cumulative Constitutional Rights, 97 Boston University Law Review 1309–1356 (2017). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Adler, Jonathan H., Stand or Deliver: Citizen Suits, Standing, and Environmental Protection, 12 Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 39–84 (2001). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Albert, Richard, The World’s Most Difficult Constitution to Amend?, 110 California Law Review 2005-2022 (2022). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Alexandre, Michèle, The New Frontiers of Civil Rights Litigation, Durham 2019. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
American Law Institute (Hg.), Restatement (Third) of Trusts, 2003. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Amirante, Domenico, Environmental Courts in Comparative Perspective: Preliminary Reflections on the National Green Tribunal of India, 29 Pace Environmental Law Review 441–469 (2012). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
Anand, A. S., Judicial Review - Judicial Activism - Need for Caution, 42 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 149–159 (2000). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995
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. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783748951995