インドにおける気候–SDG相互作用の統治：水・エネルギー・消費・森林ガバナンス統合の法的制度的枠組み
GOVERNING CLIMATE–SDG INTERACTIONS IN INDIA: A LEGAL-INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED WATER, ENERGY, CONSUMPTION, AND FOREST GOVERNANCE (原題)
Shruti Hazarika Borpujari, Saif Rasul Khan, Dr. Priyanka Diphusha, Bhupali Saikia, Hiren Ch. Nath
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
インドでは水・エネルギー・環境・森林が別々の法制度で統治され、気候政策との整合が不十分である。最高裁の気候保護請求権認識やGreat Indian Bustard訴訟を分析し、規範的整合・制度調整・説明責任・分配的保障の4基準で評価。気候–SDG計画義務、調整責任の割当、独立監査、参加型保障、定期報告からなる統合的枠組みを提案する。
English
Climate change spans water, energy, resource use and biodiversity, yet India governs these under separate legal mandates. Using doctrinal and institutional analysis of constitutional judgments, statutes and climate-policy documents, the article finds an uneven integration architecture rather than an absence of climate law. It proposes a legal-institutional framework—climate–SDG planning and reason-giving duties, assigned coordination, independent scrutiny, participatory safeguards and periodic reporting—transferable to SDGs 6, 7, 12, 13 and 15.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ・有報開示が主軸だが、本稿の「気候–SDG計画・説明義務」論は、統合報告におけるマテリアリティとトレードオフ開示の制度的裏付けとして示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
While ISSB/CSRD focus on disclosure metrics, this paper adds a governance-layer perspective: how legal institutions can be mandated to reconcile climate–development trade-offs, relevant to debates on just transition and biodiversity–climate nexus in global disclosure scholarship.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:気候ガバナンスとSDG統合の制度設計を法実証的に分析する枠組みとして参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:気候・生物多様性・社会のトレードオフを開示・マテリアリティ評価に組み込む際の論点整理に使える。
🏛政策担当者:分野別法制度間の調整責任と説明義務を設計する際の参照モデルとなる。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Climate change cuts across water security, energy access, resource use, and biodiversity conservation, yet separate legal mandates commonly govern these functions. This article examines how legal institutions can manage these interactions in India, where the Supreme Court has recognized a right to protection from the adverse effects of climate change, while sectoral legislation continues to assign water, energy, environmental protection, and forest governance to distinct institutions. Using selected-source doctrinal and institutional analysis, the article assesses constitutional judgments, statutes, delegated instruments, and climate-policy documents against four criteria: normative alignment, institutional coordination, accountability, and distributive safeguards. It finds an uneven integration architecture rather than a complete absence of climate-relevant law. Existing provisions on rural electrification, hydropower planning, environmental protection, and judicially supervised expert processes offer partial pathways for coordination, but they do not establish a consistently applicable duty to identify, assess, and reconcile climate–development trade-offs. The Great Indian Bustard litigation illustrates both the potential and the limits of litigation-led coordination. The article proposes a legal-institutional framework comprising climate–SDG planning and reason-giving duties, assigned coordination responsibilities, independent scrutiny, participatory safeguards, and periodic reporting. It offers a transferable model for integrating climate action with Sustainable Development Goals 6, 7, 12, 13 and 15 without treating renewable-energy expansion or carbon sequestration as substitutes for biodiversity protection and social justice.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.62441/actainnovations.vi.2351first seen 2026-11-15 04:51:47
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。