needed to save the environment?

拯救環境需要什麼？

This episode will show you how

本集將告訴你如何

even lawmakers aren't bigger than the law.

即使是立法者也不比法律大。

What happens when a country breaks an agreement over the environment?

當一個國家在環境問題上違反協議時會發生什麼？

Can the law help?

法律能提供幫助嗎？

And the important case that could change the way

而這個重要的案件可能會改變人們的生活方式

governments behave around the world...

世界各地政府的行為...

But first, international laws

但首先，國際法

are based on agreements between countries,

是基於國家之間的協議。

but what happens when an influential country doesn't agree?

但如果一個有影響力的國家不同意，會發生什麼？

The Amazon rainforest, in Brazil:

亞馬遜雨林，在巴西。

the millions of trees maintain the atmosphere

數以百萬計的樹木維持著大氣層

for all of us, all around the world.

為我們所有人，為全世界的人。

But Jair Bolsonaro, elected president of Brazil in 2018,

但2018年當選巴西總統的賈伊爾-博爾索納羅。

had a different view.

有不同的看法。

His government has put the needs of the economy ahead.

他的政府把經濟的需求放在前面。

While he's been in power, much more of the forest has been cut down.

在他執政期間，更多的森林被砍伐。

So, what can the international community do?

那麼，國際社會能做什麼？

A similar story in North America:

在北美也有類似的故事。

2017 and Donald Trump announces

2017年，唐納德-特朗普宣佈

the US was leaving the Paris Agreement,

美國將退出《巴黎協定》。

an agreement by 191 countries to cut their emissions.

一個由191個國家達成的減少排放的協議。

America rejoined the agreement after Joe Biden became president.

美國在喬-拜登成為總統後重新加入了該協議。

However, when countries break agreements like this,

然而，當國家破壞這樣的協議時。

what can international law do?

國際法能做什麼？

What power does something like the Paris Agreement

像《巴黎協定》這樣的東西有什麼力量

have to protect our world?

必須保護我們的世界？

What happens if a country breaks it?

如果一個國家破壞了它，會發生什麼？

Lydia Omuko-Jung, from the Climate Change Litigation Initiative

Lydia Omuko-Jung，來自氣候變化訴訟倡議組織

and the University of Graz, explained:

和格拉茨大學，解釋說。

So, the Paris Agreement takes a soft law approach

所以，《巴黎協定》採取了軟法律的方式

to its compliance mechanism, so countries will not be punished,

到它的遵守機制，所以各國不會受到懲罰。

or they will not be some sanctions for not being able to comply

或者他們不會因為不能遵守而受到一些制裁

with the binding obligations of the Paris Agreement.

與《巴黎協定》的約束性義務。

So, what happens is that where parties cannot comply,

是以，發生的情況是，在當事人不能遵守的地方。

or where parties have not complied, then it's more of a discussion –

或當事方沒有遵守的情況下，則更多的是討論----。

a dialogue: in the compliance committee, it's a dialogue

對話：在合規委員會中，這是一種對話

where they discuss why have... hasn't the country been able to comply

他們討論為什麼......國家沒有能夠遵守

and how can they comply, and then recommendations are made

以及他們如何能夠遵守，然後提出建議

based on these discussions.

在這些討論的基礎上。

The Paris Agreement follows a soft law approach.

巴黎協定》採用了軟法律的方式。

Countries aren't punished for breaking it;

國家並沒有因為違反它而受到懲罰。

instead, discussions happen about how to fix the problem.

相反，發生了關於如何解決問題的討論。

So, could international law stop something

那麼，國際法能否阻止一些

like the Brazilian rainforests being cut down?

就像巴西的雨林被砍伐一樣？

Brazil has a right to explore their resources,

巴西有權利探索他們的資源。

the national resources within their country.

在其國家內的國家資源。

It only becomes problematic when these activities

只有在這些活動中，才會出現問題

within their territory damage the environment of other states.

在他們的領土上損害其他國家的環境。

But then, in terms... in terms of cutting down forests,

但是，就......就砍伐森林而言。

we find that it's quite difficult to identify

我們發現，要識別出這一點是相當困難的

what you'd call transboundary environmental effects...

你所說的越境環境影響...

yeah, some environmental effects in another country

是的，在另一個國家的一些環境影響

because of Brazil's exploitation of its own forests.

因為巴西對自己的森林進行開採。

So, that really is quite a challenge

是以，這確實是一個相當大的挑戰

for the international community to come in.

為國際社會的介入。

Brazil can do what it wants to its own forests.

巴西可以對自己的森林做它想做的事。

You would need to prove an environmental impact in another country,

你將需要證明在另一個國家的環境影響。

called a transboundary effect, to stop this – why?

稱為越境效應，以阻止這種情況--為什麼？

Other states can only come in if there are some legally binding obligations

只有在有一些具有法律約束力的義務時，其他國家才能加入進來

that is created by some treaty which mandates,

這是由某些條約規定的。

for instance, states to protect forests.

例如，國家保護森林。

As you're speaking at the moment, we do not have, like,

正如你此刻所說的，我們沒有，比如。

a global legally binding instrument

一個具有法律約束力的全球文書

that creates this state obligation to protect forests,

創立了這種國家保護森林的義務。

which makes it difficult for the international community to get in.

這使得國際社會很難進入。

Countries can't interfere because we don't have laws

國家不能干涉，因為我們沒有法律

that create internationally protected places.

創建國際保護地。

She explained why she thought the Paris Agreement

她解釋了為什麼她認為《巴黎協定》

wasn't good enough to protect Brazil's forests.

對保護巴西的森林來說，這還不夠好。

If you look at the Paris Agreement,

如果你看一下《巴黎協定》。

it recognises the importance of forests

它認識到森林的重要性

in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions,

在減輕溫室氣體排放方面。

but it just provides that parties should take action

但它只是規定，當事人應採取的行動

to conserve and enhance forests.

以保護和加強森林。

So, what we see from this kind of drafting,

是以，我們從這種起草中看到的是。

or from this kind of provision, is that it doesn't create

或從這種規定，是它不創建

a direct responsibility on states,

是國家的直接責任。

or even a binding actual obligation,

甚至是有約束力的實際義務。

because it uses word 'should': 'parties should take action'

因為它使用了 "應該 "一詞："各方應該採取行動

rather than 'parties shall take action'

而不是 "各方應採取行動"。

to conserve and enhance the environment.

以保護和改善環境。

The Paris Agreement only says

巴黎協定》只說

countries 'should' take action to protect forests,

各國 "應該 "採取行動保護森林。

not 'shall', which means they don't have to do anything.

而不是'應'，這意味著他們不需要做任何事情。

So, international laws can't force countries to protect the climate,

所以，國際法不能強迫各國保護氣候。

but could all that be changing?

但這一切是否會發生變化？

One important case might give the Paris Agreement real strength...

一個重要的案例可能給《巴黎協定》帶來真正的力量...

Politicians talk a lot about their plans to save the environment.

政治家們經常談論他們拯救環境的計劃。

What if the law made them do something?

如果法律讓他們做什麼呢？

In 2015, around 900 people

在2015年，約有900人

took the Dutch government to court to do just that.

荷蘭政府將其告上法庭就是為了這個目的。

The court ruled that the state had a responsibility

法院裁定，國家有責任

to act to deal with climate change.

採取行動，應對氣候變化。

The Dutch government cut its coal-fired power stations by 75%

荷蘭政府削減75%的燃煤發電站

and spent €3 billion on other steps to cut emissions.

並花費30億歐元用於其他減排措施。

Dennis van Berkel, one of the Urgenda Foundation's lawyers,

丹尼斯-凡-伯克爾，烏爾根達基金會的律師之一。

said, 'The ruling will encourage others to appeal to human rights,

他說，'這項裁決將鼓勵其他人向人權提出上訴。

when it comes to climate change threats.'

當涉及到氣候變化的威脅時，'。

So, could you use this case in your own country?

那麼，你能在你自己的國家使用這個案例嗎？

And how did the law make the Dutch government change its behaviour?

而法律是如何使荷蘭政府改變其行為的？

Let's hear from Dennis van Berkel

讓我們聽聽丹尼斯-凡-伯克爾的意見

about the laws used in the Urgenda case.

關於Urgenda案中使用的法律。

We used three types of law in our case.

在我們的案件中，我們使用了三種類型的法律。

The first bit of law was tort law,

第一部法律是侵權法。

which tells us what is unlawful behaviour

它告訴我們什麼是非法行為

and which is the law to hold state or private entity liable.

而這是追究國家或私人實體責任的法律。

But, to inform what is lawful and unlawful behaviour

但是，要告知什麼是合法和非法的行為

on the side of the state, we also looked at human rights law,

在國家方面，我們也看了人權法。

particularly the European Convention on Human Rights.

特別是《歐洲人權公約》。

And we also looked at international law: for instance, the Paris Agreement,

我們還研究了國際法：例如，《巴黎協定》。

which tells us that countries need to hold their emissions to well below 2°

這告訴我們，各國需要將其排放量控制在遠低於2°的水準。

and to aim to hold temperature increase to below one and a half degrees.

並致力於將溫度上升控制在1.5度以下。

The lawyers working on this case used a variety of laws:

處理此案的律師使用了各種法律。

tort, human rights and international.

侵權行為、人權和國際。

So, what did the court ruling actually say?

那麼，法院的裁決究竟是怎麼說的？

First of all, the... the judgement said that climate change

首先，......判決書說，氣候變化

is an incredibly big threat and is actually threatening

是一個令人難以置信的大威脅，實際上正在威脅著

our right to life and our right to private life,

我們的生命權和我們的私人生活權。

and that the state therefore has a duty

是以，國家有義務

to protect us against climate change.

以保護我們免受氣候變化的影響。

But moreover, the judgement said that

但此外，該判決書說

every country has its own responsibility

每個國家都有自己的責任

to do its share in solving the problem:

為解決這個問題儘自己的一份力量。

it needs to do its fair share.

它需要做其公平的份額。

And then the... the judgement looked at what precisely is this fair share.

然後......判決書看了看這個公平份額到底是什麼。

The ruling said that climate change is a big threat

判決書說，氣候變化是一個很大的威脅

and every country is responsible for protecting its people.

而每個國家都有責任保護其人民。

But can a ruling in the Netherlands have an international impact?

但荷蘭的一項裁決能否產生國際影響？

So, there have been about 100 cases around the world by now,

是以，到現在為止，全世界已經有大約100個案例。

in which governments have been targeted

在其中，政府成為目標

for not taking enough measures against climate change,

因為沒有采取足夠的措施應對氣候變化。

for instance... for giving permission to open new airfields

例如......允許開設新的機場

or to open new coal-fire power plants,

或開設新的燃煤電廠。

but also there's been a wave of litigation against corporations,

但也出現了一波針對公司的訴訟。

and very recently there was actually a court in the Netherlands

最近，在荷蘭有一個法院

that even concluded that a multinational oil company,

該報告甚至認為，一家跨國石油公司。

such as Shell, has a legal duty to also reduce its emissions:

如殼牌公司，也有法律義務減少其排放。

not only its own emissions, but even the emissions of its consumers.

不僅是其自身的排放，甚至是其消費者的排放。

Many cases around the world have followed this one,

世界各地的許多案件都遵循這一做法。

targeting governments and corporations to fight climate change.

以政府和企業為目標，對抗氣候變化。

Dennis said this was a really important case.

丹尼斯說這是一個非常重要的案件。

We can go to the streets, but we can also go to the courts

我們可以上街，但我們也可以去法院。

and demand answers – why this problem

並要求回答 - 為什麼這個問題

has not been dealt with sufficiently.

沒有得到充分的處理。

And that's one of the big things that these cases show.

而這是這些案件所顯示的重要事情之一。

And as long as countries do not step up,

而只要國家不出面。

we will see more and more people going to courts

我們將看到越來越多的人去法院起訴

demanding that both their governments

要求他們的政府

and the corporations justify themselves

而企業則為自己辯解

with regards to what they're doing about climate change.

關於他們在氣候變化方面所做的工作。

If governments don't take action to deal with climate change,

如果政府不採取行動來應對氣候變化。

people can use the power of the law to force positive change.

人們可以利用法律的力量來推動積極的變化。

We've seen how current laws, like the Paris Agreement,

我們已經看到了目前的法律，如《巴黎協定》。

are hard to enforce, despite the good intentions behind them.

儘管其背後有良好的意圖，但很難執行。

But, thanks to smart and dedicated lawyers,

但是，多虧了聰明而專注的律師。

countries may soon have to take action

各國可能很快就要採取行動了

to protect our environment for the future.

以保護我們未來的環境。