Climate Science and the Courts: Epistemic Dilemmas in Adjudicating Climate Change

Climate models and scientific calculations feed a wealth of information to judges, which is obviously relevant to enlighten them on the factual aspects of climate change. However, these data do not automatically answer the legal question before a court, and typically do not compel a particular legal interpretation. Furthermore, courts may prefer to justify their findings using reasoning techniques which do not call for them to engage with the merits of scientific evidence. In such cases, courts speak the language of law instead of basing their findings on scientific logic. In certain scenarios, legal logic may even dictate a different outcome than scientific authority. In her lecture, Dr Sulyok will detail three scenarios from climate litigation case-law, where scientific and legal logic would warrant different conclusions. Dr. Sulyok argues that, even though crafting a purely legalistic assessment may be justified in certain circumstances, there are hard epistemic limits on the extent to which courts may legitimately sideline climate science in their judgments. She will conclude by highlighting different scenarios for courts reflecting on climate science in their findings, with a view to ensuring the robust (and rapidly developing) scientific knowledge of climate change in adjudicating climate litigation cases is not undermined.

Speaker bio:

Dr. Katalin Sulyok is Assistant Professor in International Law at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Dr Sulyok holds a Ph.D. in international law, a B.Sc. in Biology and an LL.M. degree from Harvard Law School. Her English-language PhD thesis regarding the use of scientific knowledge in international environmental adjudication was awarded the Wheaton Prize by the Institut de Droit international and was published as a monograph by Cambridge University Press in 2021 entitled “Science and Judicial Reasoning – The Legitimacy of International Environmental Adjudication”. Dr Sulyok is legal advisor in domestic and international climate litigation cases, and the chair of the Climate Crisis and Human Rights Working Group of ENNHRI (European Network of National Human Rights Institutions), which was an oral intervener in KlimaSeniorinnen and Duarte cases before the ECtHR. Her research interest lies in the interdisciplinary interaction between international environmental law and climate law as well as science and technology.