Climate change litigation and intersectionality in climate justice
本文回顾了11起交叉性气候变化诉讼案例，结合焦点小组访谈，分析原告如何利用交叉性凸显自身脆弱性，以及法院如何评估这些主张，揭示了原告与法院之间的张力与桥梁。
• Intersectional climate litigation has been on the rise in the last five years. • Ontological tensions arise between plaintiffs and courts in climate litigation. • Intersectional plaintiffs mostly target states, on mitigation and adaptation issues. • A subnational court in Australia is redefining evidence in climate litigation. • Intersectional lived experiences of plaintiffs are dismissed in courts. Climate litigation has been on the rise since the beginning of the century. However, the increased use of intersectionality by plaintiffs to highlight their particular vulnerability to climate change and its impacts remains understudied. This paper provides a review of eleven intersectional climate litigation cases, along with insights from a focus group of key informants, to examine the role of intersectionality in these cases through the lenses of intersectionality, vulnerability, and legal struggles. Particular attention is given to how plaintiffs construct intersectionality and how courts assess it, revealing underlying tensions and bridges between constructivist and materialist understandings of reality. Our findings show a growing presence of identities related to age, cultural background and health in litigation, mostly in cases targeting states and concerning issues of mitigation and adaptation. While our findings highlight shared perspectives between plaintiffs and courts, such as the extensive use of scientific evidence by plaintiffs to support their claims, tensions remain, notably due to the courts’ dismissal of plaintiffs’ intersectional and lived experiences in their assessments. Our study opens new avenues for research, including on decision-making processes, the value of intersectionality in climate litigation, and its legitimacy. By shedding light on the tensions and bridges present in intersectional climate litigation, this paper contributes to broader debates on interdisciplinary struggles, the role of legal and scientific evidence, and the complexity of climate vulnerability.