【摘要】 气候变化诉讼在国际上没有统一的认定标准,不同组织和地区有着各自本土化的认定标准,这些认定标准主要是从诉讼动机、案件议题和案件影响三个方面寻找依据。最高人民法院公布的首批“双碳”典型案例,是我国司法语境中气候变化诉讼的本土化具现。气候变化诉讼在我国存在两种样态:一种是制度建构语境下的气候变化诉讼,以案件议题为认定标准;一种是司法专门化语境下的气候变化诉讼,以案件影响为认定标准。前者表现为气候变化诉讼的制度化,后者可催生出特殊管辖规则。两种气候变化诉讼可以共存也有必要共存,两者共同构成气候变化司法应对的中国方案。更多还原

【Abstract】 There is no unified international standard for determining climate change litigation. Different organizations and regions have their own localized standards, which are mainly based on three aspects: litigation motives, case issues, and case impact. The first series of "Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality" typical cases released by the Supreme People’s Court embodies the localization of climate change litigation in China’s judicial context, revealing that there may be two types of climate change litigation in China. One is in the context of litigation development, which is defined according to case issues. The other is in the context of judicial specialization, which is defined according to case impact. The former manifests itself in the systematization of climate change litigation, while the latter may give rise to special jurisdictional rules. The two types of climate change litigation have possibility and necessity to coexist, and together constitute China’s solution to climate change litigation.更多还原