1932

Abstract

The mobilization of law to address the degradation of the environment implicates a wide range of institutions, actors, and materials. This article maps developments in the study of environmental legal mobilization. It examines the different theoretical approaches that account for why and how groups mobilize the law (or do not), including explanations focusing on law; legal opportunity structures; resources; and/or ideas, identities, and knowledge. It then considers some of the methodological challenges of studying environmental legal mobilization and highlights recent efforts to overcome them and broaden the scope of the analysis. The article then identifies four trends that are shaping the mobilization of law: () changing forms of environmental law and regulation; () shifts in the political landscape, including repression of civil society and the undermining of the rule of law; () the growing diversity of the environmental movement; and () the cumulative impacts of environmental and climate degradation on the very institutions, processes, and resources available for the mobilization of law.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-104423
2022-10-18
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/18/1/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-104423.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-104423&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbot C, Lee M 2021. Environmental Groups and Legal Expertise: Shaping the Brexit Process London: UCL Press
  2. Adams AE, Shriver TE. 2017. Tactics and targets: explaining shifts in grassroots environmental resistance. Soc. Curr. 4:3265–81
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alter KJ. 2010. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  4. Andersen EA. 2006. Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  5. Arnall A, Hilson C, McKinnon C. 2019. Climate displacement and resettlement: the importance of claims-making “from below. .” Clim. Policy 19:6665–71
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aspinwall M. 2021. Legal mobilization without resources? How civil society organizations generate and share alternative resources in vulnerable communities. J. Law Soc. 48:202–25
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bakiner O. 2020. Endogenous sources of judicial power: parapolitics and the Supreme Court of Colombia. Comp. Politics 52:4603–24
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barry A. 2013. Material Politics: Disputes along the Pipeline Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
  9. Barry A. 2020. Afterword: “I will play my part!”, or parliamentary politics in action. Soc. Stud. Sci. 50:2335–42
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beckwith K. 2015. Narratives of defeat: explaining the effects of loss in social movements. J. Politics 77:12–13
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bennett J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  12. Bertram D. 2022. Judicializing environmental governance? The case of transnational corporate accountability. Glob. Environ. Politics 22:2117–35
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bhuwania A. 2017. Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  14. Börzel TA. 2006. Participation through law enforcement: the case of the European Union. Comp. Political Stud. 39:1128–52
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Börzel TA, Buzogány A. 2019. Compliance with EU environmental law. The iceberg is melting. Environ. Politics 28:2315–41
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bouwer K. 2018. The unsexy future of climate change litigation. J. Environ. Law 30:3483–506
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Boyd DR. 2011. The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment Vancouver: Univ. B.C. Press
  18. Boyd DR. 2017. The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution that Could Save the World Toronto: ECW Press
  19. Brulle RJ. 2014. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim. Change 122:4681–94
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brulle RJ, Hall G, Loy L, Schell-Smith K. 2021. Obstructing action: foundation funding and US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim. Change 166:17
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bullard RD 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots Boston: South End
  22. Burger M, Wentz J, Horton R. 2020. The law and science of climate change attribution. Columbia J. Environ. Law 45:157–240
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Calliari E, Serdeczny O, Vanhala L. 2020. Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss & damage debate. Glob. Environ. Change 64:102133
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cameron J, Abouchar J. 1991. The precautionary principle: a fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment. Boston Coll. Int. Comp. Law Rev. 14:1–27
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Celermajer D, Schlosberg D, Rickards L, Stewart-Harawira M, Thaler M et al. 2021. Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics. Environ. Politics 30:1–2119–40
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cichowski RA, Stone Sweet A 2003. Participation, representative democracy, and the courts. Democracy Transformed? BE Cain, RJ Dalton, SE Scarrow 192–217 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Coglianese C. 1996. Litigating within relationships: disputes and disturbance in the regulatory process. Law Soc. Rev. 30:4735–65
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Coglianese C. 2001. Social movements, law, and society: the institutionalization of the environmental movement. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 150:185–118
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Crepelle A. 2018. The United States first climate relocation: recognition, relocation, and indigenous rights at the Isle de Jean Charles. Belmont Law Rev 6:1–40
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dalton R, Reccia S, Rohrschneider R. 2003. The environmental movement and the modes of political action. Comp. Political Stud. 36:7743–71
    [Google Scholar]
  31. de Moor J, De Vydt M, Uba K, Wahlström M. 2021. New kids on the block: taking stock of the recent cycle of climate activism. Soc. Mov. Stud. 20:5619–25
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Derman BB. 2019. Revisiting limits to legal mobilization for global climate justice: complexity, territoriality, and responsibility. Oñati Socio-legal Ser 9:3333–60
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dietz T, Shwom RL, Whitley CT. 2020. Climate change and society. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 46:135–58
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Doherty B, Hayes G. 2012. Tactics, traditions and opportunities: British and French crop-trashing actions in comparative perspective. Eur. J. Political Res. 51:4540–62
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Doherty B, Hayes G. 2014. Having your day in court: judicial opportunity and tactical choice in anti-GMO campaigns in France and the United Kingdom. Comp. Political Stud. 47:13–29
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Doherty B, Hayes G 2019. Tactics and strategic action. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements DA Snow, SA Soule, H Kriesi, HJ McCammon 271–88 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ellefsen R. 2016. Judicial opportunities and the death of SHAC: legal repression along a cycle of contention. Soc. Mov. Stud. 15:5441–56
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Epp CR. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  39. Epstein Y. 2017. Killing wolves to save them? Legal responses to “tolerance hunting” in the European Union and United States. RECIEL 26:119–29
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fisher E. 2013. Climate change litigation, obsession and expertise: reflecting on the scholarly response to Massachusetts v. EPA. Law Policy 35:3236–60
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fisher E, Scotford E, Barritt E. 2017. The legally disruptive nature of climate change. Mod. Law Rev. 80:2173–201
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fitz-Henry E 2018. Challenging corporate “personhood”: energy companies and the “rights” of non-humans. PoLAR 41:S185–102
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fitz-Henry E 2020. Conjuring the past: slow violence and the temporalities of environmental rights tribunals. Geoforum 108:259–66
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Franta B. 2017. Litigation in the fossil fuel divestment movement. Law Policy 39:4393–411
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Galanter M. 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:195–160
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gardiner SM. 2006. A core precautionary principle. J. Political Philos. 14:33–60
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Grear A. 2017. Foregrounding vulnerability: materiality's porous affectability as a methodological platform. Research Methods in Environmental Law: A Handbook A Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos 3–28 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Grear A. 2020. Legal imaginaries and the Anthropocene: “of” and “for. .” Law Crit. 31:3351–66
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Green F. 2018. Anti-fossil fuel norms. Clim. Change 150:1103–16
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Gubbay I, Wenzler C 2021. Intergenerational climate change litigation: the first climate communication to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives I Alogna, C Bakker, J-P Gauci 343–65 Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Gunningham N. 2017. Building norms from the grassroots up: divestment, expressive politics, and climate change. Law Policy 39:4372–92
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gunningham N, Grabosky P. 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy Oxford, UK: Clarendon
  53. Gunningham N, Holley C. 2016. Next-generation environmental regulation: law, regulation, and governance. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 12:273–93
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haines F, Reichman N. 2008. The problem that is global warming: introduction. Law Policy 30:4385–93
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hayes G. 2013. Negotiating proximity: expert testimony and collective memory in the trials of environmental activists in France and the United Kingdom. Law Policy 35:3208–35
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hein JE, Chaudhri V. 2019. Delegitimizing the enemy: framing, tactical innovation, and blunders in the battle for the Arctic. Soc. Mov. Stud. 18:2171–92
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hetherington K. 2013. Beans before the law: knowledge practices, responsibility, and the Paraguayan soy boom. Cult. Anthropol. 28:165–85
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hilson C. 2002. New social movements: the role of legal opportunity. J. Eur. Public Policy 9:2238–55
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hilson C. 2015. Framing fracking: Which frames are heard in English planning and environmental policy and practice?. J. Environ. Law 27:2177–202
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hilson C. 2016. Environmental SLAPPs in the UK: Threat or opportunity?. Environ. Politics 25:2248–67
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hilson C. 2018a. Framing time in climate change litigation. Oñati Socio-legal Ser 9:3361–79
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hilson C. 2018b. The visibility of environmental rights in the EU legal order: Eurolegalism in action?. J. Eur. Public Policy 25:111589–609
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hilson C. 2019. Climate populism, courts, and science. J. Environ. Law 31:3395–98
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hofmann A. 2019. Left to interest groups? On the prospects for enforcing environmental law in the European Union. Environ. Politics 28:2342–64
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hofmann A, Naurin D. 2021. Explaining interest group litigation in Europe: evidence from the comparative interest group survey. Governance 3:41235–53
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Humphreys S 2010. Human Rights and Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  67. Humphreys S. 2020. Ungoverning the climate. Transnatl. Legal Theory 11:3244–66
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ipsen A. 2020. Repeat players, the law, and social change: redefining the boundaries of environmental and labor governance through preemptive and authoritarian legality. Law Soc. Rev. 54:1201–32
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Jasanoff S. 1991. What judges should know about the sociology of science. Jurimetrics 32:345–59
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Jasanoff S. 1997. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America, Vol. 9 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  71. Jasanoff S. 2005. Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings. Am. J. Public Health 95:S1S49–S58
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Jodoin S, Snow S, Corobow A. 2020. Realizing the right to be cold? Framing processes and outcomes associated with the Inuit petition on human rights and global warming. Law Soc. Rev. 54:168–200
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kelemen RD. 2011. Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  74. Knox H. 2020. Thinking Like a Climate: Governing a City in Times of Environmental Change Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  75. Kohn E. 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  76. Latour B. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d'Etat Cambridge, UK: Polity
  77. Lehoucq E, Taylor WK. 2020. Conceptualizing legal mobilization: How should we understand the deployment of legal strategies?. Law Soc. Inq. 45:1166–93
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ley AJ. 2018. Mobilizing doubt: the legal mobilization of climate denialist groups. Law Policy 40:3221–42
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lock R, Vanhala L. 2022. International NGOs and the (non) mobilization of human rights in the context of climate change: An inconvenient frame?”. Legal Mobilization for Human Rights G de Búrca pp. 51–72. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lyon TP. 2020. Introduction to the special issue on “Social Movements and Private Environmental Governance. .” Organ. Environ. 33:13–6
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Marshall AM, Sterett S. 2019. Legal mobilization and climate change: the role of law in wicked problems. Oñati Socio-legal Ser 9:3267–74
    [Google Scholar]
  82. McAllister LK. 2008. Making Law Matter: Environmental Protection and Legal Institutions in Brazil Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  83. McCann MW. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  84. McCann MW 2004. Law and social movements. The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society A Sarat 506–22 London: Blackwell/Dartmouth
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McCarthy JD, Zald MN. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. Am. J. Sociol. 82:61212–41
    [Google Scholar]
  86. McKinnon C. 2012. Climate Change and Future Justice: Precaution, Compensation and Triage Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  87. Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT. 2009. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34:405–30
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Moore JW, Nowlan L, Olszynski M, Jacob AL, Favaro B et al. 2018. Towards linking environmental law and science. Facets 3:1375–91
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Morag-Levine N. 2003a. Partners no more: relational transformation and the turn to litigation in two conservationist organizations. Law Soc. Rev. 37:2457–510
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Morag-Levine N 2003b. Chasing the Wind: Regulating Air Pollution in the Common Law State Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  91. Muñoz L, Moya D. 2019. Creating space for supranational law: environmental legal mobilization and Spanish NGOs. Research Handbook on Law and Courts Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Nixon R. 2011. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  93. Nosek G. 2018. Climate change litigation and narrative: how to use litigation to tell compelling climate stories. William Mary Environ. Law Policy Rev. 42:3733–804
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Pavone T, Kelemen RD. 2019. The evolving judicial politics of European Integration: the European Court of Justice and national courts revisited. Eur. Law J. 25:4352–73
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2018. A rights turn in climate change litigation?. Transnatl. Environ. Law 7:137–67
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2020. Climate change litigation. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 16:21–38
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Peel J, Osofsky HM, Foerster A. 2018. A “next generation” of climate change litigation? An Australian perspective. Oñati Socio-legal Ser. 9:3275–307
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Rogers N. 2013. Climate change litigation and the awfulness of lawfulness. Altern. Law J. 38:120–24
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Rosenberg G. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  100. Sawyer S. 2006. Disabling corporate sovereignty in a transnational lawsuit. PoLAR 29:123–43
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sawyer S 2015. Crude contamination: law, science, and indeterminancy in Ecuador and beyond. Subterranean Estates: Life Worlds of Oil and Gas H Appel, A Mason, M Watts 136–46 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Setzer J, Vanhala LC. 2019. Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. WIREs Clim. Change 10:3e580
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Sterett SM, Mateczun LK. 2020. Displacement, legal mobilization, and disasters: trial courts and legal process. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 11:4348–76
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Stern RE. 2013. Environmental Litigation in China: A Study in Political Ambivalence Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  105. Stone C. 1972. Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. South. Calif. Law Rev. 45:450–501
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Stuart-Smith RF, Otto FE, Saad AI, Lisi G, Minnerop P et al. 2021. Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11:8651–55
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Taylor WK. 2020. On the social construction of legal grievances: evidence from Colombia and South Africa. Comp. Political Stud. 53:81326–56
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Töller AE. 2021. Driving bans for diesel cars in German cities: the role of ENGOs and courts in producing an unlikely outcome. Eur. Policy Anal. 7:2486–507
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Vanhala L. 2011. Making Rights a Reality? Disability Rights Activists and Legal Mobilization. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Vanhala L. 2012. Legal opportunity structures and the paradox of legal mobilization by the environmental movement in the UK. Law Soc. Rev. 46:3523–56
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Vanhala L. 2013. The comparative politics of courts and climate change. Environ. Politics 22:3447–74
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Vanhala L. 2016. Legal mobilization under neo-corporatist governance: environmental NGOs before the Conseil d'Etat in France, 1975–2010. J. Law Courts 4:1103–30
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Vanhala L. 2017. Process tracing in the study of environmental politics. Glob. Environ. Politics 17:488–105
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Vanhala L. 2018. Is legal mobilization for the birds? Legal opportunity structures and environmental nongovernmental organisations in the United Kingdom, France, Finland and Italy. Comp. Political Stud. 51:3380–412
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Vanhala L. 2020. Co-producing the endangered polar bear: science, climate change and legal mobilization. Law Policy 42:2105–24
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Vanhala L, Hestbaek C. 2016. Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Glob. Environ. Politics 16:4111–29
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Vanhala L, Hilson C. 2013. Climate change litigation: symposium introduction. Law Policy 35:3141–49
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Vanhala L, Johansson A, Butler F. 2022. Deploying an ethnographic sensibility to understand climate change governance: hanging out, around, in, and back. Glob. Environ. Politics 22:2180–93
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Vanhala L, Kinghan J. 2018. Literature review on the use and impact of litigation Publ., Public Law Proj. London: https://publiclawproject.org.uk/resources/literature-review-on-the-use-and-impact-of-litigation/
  120. Waldner D 2012. Process tracing and causal mechanisms. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science H Kincaid 65–84 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Walker-Crawford DN. 2021. Climate change in court: making neighbourly relations in a warming world PhD diss., Univ. Manchester Manchester, UK:
  122. Wright R, Boudet H. 2012. To act or not to act: context, capability, and community response to environmental risk. Am. J. Sociol. 118:3728–77
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-104423
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error