Punishing the last citizens? On the climate necessity defence
Faced with the inaction of liberal democracies to efectively tackle global warming, many climate activists engage in forms of protests that involve committing minor criminal ofences. They seek to shape ofcial decisions on climate policies by resorting to civil disobedience. Some of these activists,...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/58629 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/58629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09642-y |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Climate activism Civil disobedience Necessity defence Rule of law Punishment |
| Sumario: | Faced with the inaction of liberal democracies to efectively tackle global warming, many climate activists engage in forms of protests that involve committing minor criminal ofences. They seek to shape ofcial decisions on climate policies by resorting to civil disobedience. Some of these activists, rather than accepting punishment, have successfully claimed to be acting in a justifed manner by invoking the necessity defence. The aim of this article is to show that, within the framework of representative democracies guided by the rule of law, the climate necessity defence must be rejected, since such protests do not meet the ‘non-legal alternatives’ requirement. This does not mean, however, that protesters should be punished as common ofenders. Their acceptance of responsibility and political motivation should be taken into account as a mitigating factor at sentencing. |
|---|