Artificial Intelligence Must Be Used According to the Law, or Not at All

Democracy requires to strengthen the Rule of Law wherever public or private actors use algorithmic systems. The law must set out the requirements on AI necessary in a democratic society and organize appropriate accountability and oversight. To this end, the European Commission made several legislative proposals. In addition to the discussion on how to use algorithmic systems lawfully, the question when it is beneficial to use them deserves more attention.

The Rule of Law versus the Rule of the Algorithm

When we chose the title of this symposium, we thought it might be controversial. We expected that at least some of the authors would argue that algorithmic threats to the rule of law were solvable, or that responsibly-implemented algorithms could even help the delivery of justice. None of the experts did. In the series of articles which we will present to you in the next days, we find no techno-optimism. That should give everybody pause - especially to the advocates in favour of algorithmic solutions for every problem.

›Don’t Look Up‹, Look ›South‹

There is no doubt: climate law is about to become one of the most important issues in comparative constitutional and international law. The institutional and legal questions are tricky, the number of cases exploding, and, more importantly: the stakes are high. On the very day we kicked off this blog debate the world was hit by the news of an “impossible” and “unthinkable” temperature surge in the Arctic and Antarctic, with climate journalists stating in shock that “Antarctic climatology has been rewritten”. On the day this blog debate concluded we learned of an “unprecedented sixth mass coral bleaching event” in the Great Barrier Reef, with scientists demanding immediate action yet again.

Distrust – Trust – Recognition

Could it be that even Russia’s current political leadership is in truth not necessarily interested in conquering the land and people of Ukraine, but in proving Russia’s great power status? If so, the classification as a „regional power“ would be a violation of Russian self-esteem and status consciousness, for the healing of which Russia is starting a war that is contrary to international law, morally reprehensible, economically absurd and cruel, and devoid of any pragmatic rational explanation.

Misstrauen – Vertrauen – Anerkennung

Könnte es sein, dass es selbst der gegenwärtigen politischen Führung Russlands in Wahrheit gar nicht un­bedingt um die Eroberung von Land und Leuten der Ukraine geht, sondern um den Beweis des russischen Großmachtstatus? Dann wäre die Einstufung als „Regionalmacht“ eine Verletzung russischen Selbstgefühls und Statusbewusstseins, für dessen Heilung Russland einen völkerrechtswidrigen, moralisch verwerflichen, ökonomisch widersinnigen und grausamen Krieg bar jeder realpolitisch-rationalen Erklärungs­fä­higkeit vom Zaune bricht.

Indigenous Climate Litigation in Anglophone Settler-Colonial States

The legacy of colonialism suggests a shared affinity between climate litigation in the Global South, and climate litigation brought by Indigenous peoples in the settler-colonial states of the Global North. This blog post focuses on claims brought by Indigenous peoples in the Anglophone settler-colonial states of Australia, Canada, the United States and Aotearoa/New Zealand. I begin by setting out the disproportionate impact of climate change experienced by Indigenous peoples, as well as Indigenous movements of resistance and adaptation. In doing so, I draw on claims brought by various Indigenous groups and individuals in the course of climate litigation. Framing climate litigation as part of this response, I then survey Indigenous climate litigation across the four jurisdictions. I end with some notes of caution regarding the essentializing and exploitation of Indigenous peoples by the climate litigation movement, cautions which may be applicable to litigation in the Global South.

Lessons on »Adaptation Litigation« from the Global South

Adaptation litigation is not only a tool to better prepare infrastructure through tort and administrative law. It is a more ambiguous and creative category, drawing on everything from refugee law to human rights and legal provisions recognizing the rights of nature. While adaptation litigation in the Global North has largely focused on infrastructure, litigation in the Global South has addressed a broader range of factors that contribute to adaptive capacity, from environmental factors like deforestation, to human governance and resourcing systems like disaster response and migration systems.

As the Lungs of the Earth Dry Out, Climate Litigation Heats Up

The Amazon Forest – el pulmón del mundo – has been at the center of four recent rights-based climate lawsuits in the region. Interestingly, the existence of solid legal grounds for environmental litigation has not stopped petitioners and courts from using some degree of creativity in shaping new rights. I argue that any evaluation of the potential benefits and impacts of (new) rights strategies must consider their limitations in setting clear legal boundaries and achieving immediate political change. Nonetheless, rights-based climate lawsuits play an important symbolic role, as they recognize the vulnerability of certain groups to climate change.

No Kidding!

The strategy of challenging a plurality of states directly before international adjudicating bodies has been, so far, a youth’s distinct move in the field of climate litigation, and it is by far the largest vehicle for transnational complaints. Our contribution provides an overview of the relevant cases, many of which still pending, and tries to pinpoint the drivers and possible trajectories of a global phenomenon which could go some way towards redressing the injustice the Global South is suffering as a result of global warming.