Legitimate expectations should be considered in the transition to a low-carbon society. After explaining under what conditions and circumstances expectations are legitimate, this paper shows that those expectations whose frustration undermines the ability to plan, infringes basic moral rights, or is extremely costly for its bearer might justify a deviation in the baseline of justice in favour of the expectation holder. People should be notified about the likely frustration of their expectations so that they can avoid the frustration of their expectations, adapt their life plans and minimise costs. Since the frustration of legitimate expectations seems unavoidable in the transformation to a low-carbon society, priority should be given to the protection of the expectations of those who cannot be materially compensated. Still, if two groups are eligible for material compensation, we should give priority to protecting the expectation of those who cannot continue with the same life plan as before if their expectations are frustrated.

ResumenEn este trabajo intentaré defender una noción combinada de daño de acuerdo a la cual existen dos tipos de daños cualitativamente diferentes. Asimismo, defenderé un modo en que la gravedad de los diferentes daños puede ser graduada. Derivado de lo anterior, extraeré tres principios sobre la fuerza de las razones en contra de dañar. La tesis defendida proporcionará herramientas para resolver algunos problemas de la parte general de derecho penal. En relación al tipo penal, mostraré que la noción de daño defendida puede ayudar a resolver casos de cursos causales alternativos e hipotéticos. En referencia a la antijuridicidad, mostraré que la clasificación de la gravedad de los daños propuesta ayuda a distinguir qué casos de estado de necesidad deben considerarse como justificación y cuales como excusa. En referencia a la culpabilidad, mostraré que los principios sobre la diferente fuerza de las razones en contra de dañar ayudan a aportar criterios claros para la individualización de la pena a imponer por la comisión de un delito.Palabras clave: Concepto de daño, gravedad de daño, cursos causales hipotéticos, estado de necesidad, graduación de la pena. AbstractIn this work, I will support a combined notion of harm according to with there are qualitatively different harms. I will support a way in which the severity of harms could be measured. Then, I will provide three principles about the strength of the reasons against harming. The supported thesis will provide some tools to solve some problems of the general part of criminal law. In relation to the analytical stratum of statutory description of an offence, I will show that the defended notion of harm could help to solve cases of hypothetical and alternative causal courses. In relation to the analytical stratum of unlawfulness (or wrongfulness), I will show that the proposed ranking of the severity of harms help us to distinguish between cases of necessity as justification and necessity as excuse. In relation to the analytical stratum of culpability, I will show that the principles regarding the strength of the reasons against harming help us to supply straightforward criteria to measure the punishment to impose for having committed some crime.

No abstract

Fecha de recepción: 29 de abril de 2015. Fecha de aceptación: 23 de julio de 2015. ** Agradezco a Romina Frontalini reKers y Ramiro moyano con quienes he discutido reiteradas veces el argumento de este trabajo. Debo agradecer especialmente a Hugo seleme, José Peralta, Miguel A. rodilla y Guillermo lariguet, por sus valiosas objeciones. También a Fabián balCarCe, Rodrigo sánChez brígido, Cristina méndez rodríguez, Esteban llamosas, Tim meiJers, Juan iosa, Matías gonzales del solar y a Jorge Luis zegarra. Asimismo, a Lucas mísseri, Cristián Fatauros, Luciana samamé, Emanuel olivares, Adriana verCellone, Ignacio gómez Perdiguero, Ercilia adén y a todo el grupo del Programa en Ética y Teoría Política del Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales (UNC) por sus valiosos comentarios.

Much of the climate justice discussion revolves around how the remaining carbon budget should be globally allocated. Some authors defend the unjust enrichment interpretation of the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). According to this principle, those states unjustly enriched from historical emissions should pay. I argue that if the BPP is to be constructed along the lines of the unjust enrichment doctrine, countervailing reasons that might be able to block the existence of a duty of restitution should be assessed. One might think that the duty to provide restitution no longer has moral weight if many benefits were already consumed, if the particular benefits obtained from historical emissions cannot be transferred from one country to another, or if present members of developed countries framed their life plans based upon the expectation of continued possession of those benefits. I show that none of these reasons negate the duty to provide restitution.