Article Sidebar

Submitted
Aug 3, 2020
Accepted
Nov 10, 2020
Published
Dec 22, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1632 Download : 1984

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Abstrak

Masalah doktrinal menjadi salah satu rintangan sulit untuk diselesaikan dalam gugatan perubahan iklim. Beberapa gugatan perubahan iklim di Amerika Serikat menunjukkan permasalahan seperti hak gugat, yurisdiksi, sampai banyaknya pihak yang berpotensi untuk bertanggung jawab. Dengan banyaknya permasalahan, litigasi perubahan iklim tampak seperti sebuah pilihan yang sangat sulit untuk ditempuh. Namun, harapan itu muncul ketika perkembangan ilmu dan teori hukum beberapa tahun terakhir menjawab permasalahan dalam litigasi perubahan iklim. The Second Wave of Climate Litigation menjadi pertanda baru adanya harapan bagi permasalahan doktrinal dalam litigasi perubahan iklim. Lebih lanjut, pengaturan Hak Gugat di Indonesia menunjukkan prospek bahwa isu perubahan iklim di Peradilan Indonesia akan banyak dibicarakan di tahap substansi. Untuk itu, tulisan ini bertujuan membahas permasalahan doktrinal apa yang berpeluang terjadi jika litigasi perubahan iklim diajukan di Indonesia. Tulisan ini juga berpendapat bahwa perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan dan teori hukum dapat meringankan pembuktian litigasi perubahan iklim privat di Indonesia.

Kata Kunci: Litigasi Perubahan Iklim Privat, Hak Gugat, The Second Wave of Climate Litigation.

 

Abstract

The doctrinal issue is one of the most difficult challenges to be addressed in climate litigation. Some climate change cases in the United States show complexities such as legal standing, courts jurisdiction, and a huge amount of potential defendants. With these complexities, climate litigation seems to be a very tough way to go through. Nonetheless, science and legal theory in the last few years show a glimmer of hope concerning climate litigation. The Second Wave of Climate Litigation is a sign of hope to address the doctrinal issue in climate litigation.  In addition to that, the stipulation of legal standing in Indonesia provides the prospect that climate change will be discussed substantially in Indonesian court. Therefore, this paper discusses doctrinal issue that is likely to arise in Indonesia’s climate litigation. This paper also argues that the development of scientific evidence and legal theory can ease the improbable burden of proof in Indonesia’s private climate litigation.

Keywords: Private Climate Litigation, Legal Standing, The Second Wave of Climate Change Litigation.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sembiring, Z. A., & Baihaqie, A. G. (2020). Litigasi Perubahan Iklim Privat di Indonesia: Prospek dan Permasalahannya. Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia, 7(1), 118–140. https://doi.org/10.38011/jhli.v7i1.215
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. DAFTAR PUSTAKA
  2. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
  3. Indonesia. Undang-Undang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. UU No. 32 Tahun 2009. LN No. 140. TLN No. 5059.
  4. Ketua Mahkamah Agung. Surat Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung tentang Pemberlakuan Pedoman Penanganan Perkara Lingkungan Hidup. SK KMA No. 36/KMA/SK/
  5. II/2013.
  6. Putusan Pengadilan
  7. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 04 Civ. 5669, 04 Civ. 5670, S.D.N.Y., (2005)
  8. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 1:05-cv-00436, S.D. Miss., (2007).
  9. Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d, 1224, D. Or. (2016)
  10. Lliuya v. RWE AG, No. 2 O 285/15, Essen Regional Court (2015).
  11. Pengadilan Negeri Kota Samarinda, Putusan No. 55/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Smda.
  12. Buku
  13. Frank, Will. Christoph Bals dan Julia Grimm. “The Case of Huaraz: First Climate Lawsuit on Loss and Damage Agaisnst an Energy Company Before German Courts,” dalam Reinhard Mechler, et.al., (eds.), Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options, Cham: The Springer, 2019.
  14. Peel, Jacqueline dan Hari M. Ofofsky. Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  15. Pring, George; dan Catherine Pring, Environmental Courts & Tribunals: A Guide for Policy Makers (Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 2016).
  16. Reinhard Mechler, Laurens M. BouwerThomas, dkk. Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options, Cham: The Springer, 2019.
  17. Wibisana, Andri G. Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan Melalui Pertanggungjawaban Perdata, (Depok: Badan Penerbit FHUI, 2017).
  18. Artikel/Jurnal
  19. Benzoni, Francisco. “Environmental Standing: Who Determines The Value of Other Life?,” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring, 2008.
  20. Brouwer, Kim. “The Unsexy Future of Climate Change Litigation,” Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 30, No. 3, November 2018.
  21. Burger, Michael, Jessica Wentz dan Radley Horton. “The Law and Science of Climate Change Attribution,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol.45, No. 1, Februari 2020.
  22. Curry, Ian R. “Establishing Climate Change Standing: A New Approach,” Pace Environmental Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2019.
  23. Farber, Daniel A. “Standing on Hot Air: American Electric Power and the Bankruptcy of Standing Doctrine,” The Yale Law Journal Online, Vol. 121, 2011.
  24. Ganguly, Geetanjali, Joana Setzer dan Veerle Heyvaert. “If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2018.
  25. Gellers, Josh. “Righting Environmental Wrongs: Assessing the Role of Legal Systems in Redressing Environmental Grievances,” Journal of Evironmental Law & Litigation, Vol. 26, No. 2, Februari 2011
  26. Heede, Richard. “Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions To Fossil Fuel and Cement Producers, 1854-2010,” Climate Change, Vol. 122, 2014.
  27. Hinteregger, Monika. “Civil Liability and the Challenges of Climate Change: A Functional Analysis,” Journal of European Tort Law, Vol. 8, No. 2, November, 2017.
  28. Hunter, David dan James Salzman.“Negligence in the Air: the Duty of Care in Climate Change Litigation,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, No. 174, (2007).
  29. Maag, Kirk B. “Climate Change Litigation: Drawing Lines To Avoid Strict, Joint, and Several Liability,” The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 85, No. 185, 2009.
  30. May, James. “Climate Change, Constitutional Consignment, and the Political Questions Doctrine,” Denver University Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 4, 2008.
  31. Peel, Jacqueline dan Hari M. Osofsky, “A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation,” Transnational Environmental Law, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2018.
  32. Spitzer, Martin; dan Bernhard Burtscher. “Liability for Climate Change: Cases, Challenges and Concepts,” Journal of European Tort Law, Vol. 2017, No. 2, November 2017.
  33. Stern, Nat. “Don’t Answer That: Revisiting The Political Question Doctrine in State Courts,” Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2018.
  34. Sunstein, Cass R. “What’s Standing After Lujan? Of Citizen Suits, “Injuries,” and Article III,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 91, November 1992.
  35. Toussaint, Patrick. “Loss and Damage and Climate Litigation: the Case for Greater Interlinkage”, Review of European Community, Comparative & International Environmental Law, Vol. 00,1, 2020.
  36. Lain-Lain
  37. Carbon Disclosure Project, “The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017”, https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl
  38. .cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240 diakses pada 29 Mei 2020.
  39. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 1:05-cv-00436, S.D. Miss., (2007), tersedia dalam: http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/
  40. uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2005/20050930_docket-105-cv-00436_
  41. complaint.pdf,
  42. _______, 1:05-cv-00436, S.D. Miss., (2007), tersedia dalam: http://blogs2
  43. .law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/
  44. case-documents/2007/20070830_docket-105-cv-00436_order.pdf
  45. Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says” https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change diakses pada 29 Mei 2020.
  46. Setzer, Joana dan Rebecca Byrnes. “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2019 Snapshot”, http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp content/uploads/
  47. /07/GRI_Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2019-snapshot-2.pdf. Diakses pada 27 Mei 2020.
  48. _______. “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Snapshot”, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/
  49. Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation_2020-snapshot.pdf diakses pada 26 Juli 2020.
  50. DAFTAR GAMBAR
  51. Gambar 1. Konsep Litigasi Perubahan Iklim oleh Peel dan Osofsky