查看文章

In the article Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative, we argue that an enhanced and wider understanding of attribution science will shape the social superstructure narrative of climate change. This social superstructure narrative influences courts in their decision-making. Benoit Mayer, in the same issue, has commented on our article. We use this rejoinder to clarify three elements of Mayer's comments in his response to help avoid any misconception of our argument or misunderstanding of the German Civil Code and thus hopefully enrich the discussion. These clarifications speak to the role of the courts first to preserve the rule of law and second in the context of climate change with the third clarification relating to the legal basis of a specific claim under German law. First, Mayer claims that our argument confuses law and justice by concluding that climate change is an issue of injustice and therefore is a matter for courts.

Mayer's proposition ignores the fundamental role of law—which is to serve justice. Mayer continues to suggest that because we confuse law and justice, our argument misconstrues the conditions under which courts can ‘impose compensation’. Our argument is not about courts imposing compensation but courts applying the law. The role of courts in any society is to preserve the rule of law and, in so doing, ensure that decisions are fair and just. We explain that what constitutes justice or injustice pertains to societies' and courts' perceptions, and this inevitably influences the interpretation of the law. The author not only misses our point about the interlinkages of societal fairness …