Advertisement

Climate Action as Positive Human Rights Obligation: The Appeals Judgment in Urgenda v the Netherlands

  • Laura BurgersEmail author
  • Tim Staal
Chapter
Part of the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law book series (NYIL, volume 49)

Abstract

On 9 October 2018, The Hague Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance judgement rendered in the world-famous Urgenda case: the Dutch State commits a tort by setting a goal for greenhouse gas emissions reduction of only 20% by the end of 2020, compared to 1990 levels. The State is ordered to raise this goal to at least 25%. Both judgments are heavily criticised by constitutional and administrative law scholars. Most of this critique is ultimately linked to the objection that the Courts overstepped their task in the constitutional separation of powers. With this objection the State also takes the case to the Supreme Court. This annotation analyses the appellate court’s decision step by step, pointing out where it differs from the lower court’s decision and engaging with the various critiques. The Court of Appeal directly applies Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to family life) of the ECHR, finds that these rights cover climate change related situations, and on the basis of Dutch civil procedure determines that 25% reduction is the factual minimum to prevent ECHR violations. Although parts of the decision could have been motivated in more detail, the authors conclude that the Court applied the law correctly and that neither the separation of powers, nor the political question doctrine were infringed.

Keywords

Urgenda Separation of powers ECHR Climate change litigation Human rights Right to life Right to family life Environment Private law Civil procedure Political question doctrine 

References

  1. Besselink L (2018) De constitutioneel meer legitieme manier van toetsing: Urgenda voor het Gerechtshof Den Haag. Nederlands Juristenblad NJB 93(41):3078–3082Google Scholar
  2. Bleeker T (2018a) Voldoende belang in collectieve acties: Drie maal artikel 3:303 BW. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Burgerlijk Recht NBTR 20(5):139–151Google Scholar
  3. Bleeker T (2018b) Aansprakelijkheid voor klimaatschade: een driekoppige draak. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Burgerlijk Recht NBTR 1:4–11Google Scholar
  4. Boogaard G (2016) Urgenda en de rol van de rechter. Over de ondraaglijke leegheid van de Trias Politica. Ars Aequi 65(1):26–33Google Scholar
  5. Colombo E (2017) The Quest for Cosmopolitan Justice in Climate Matters. Nord Miljörättslig Tidskrift 2:25–39Google Scholar
  6. De Jong E (2015) Urgenda: rechterlijke risicoregulering als alternatief voor risicoregulering door de overheid? Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Burgerlijk Recht 319–326Google Scholar
  7. De Jong E (2018) Rechterlijke risicoregulering en het EVRM: over drempels om de civiele rechter als risicoreguleerder te laten optreden. NJCM Bulletin 43:207–230Google Scholar
  8. De Vries A, Somsen H (2016) De Urgenda-uitspraak: Geen schending van EU-recht. Aansprakelijkheid Verzekering En Schade (4):149–151Google Scholar
  9. Enneking L, De Jong E (2014) Regulering van onzekere risico’s via public interest litigation? Nederlands Juristenblad NJB 23, 1542–1551Google Scholar
  10. Gerards JH, Fleuren JWA (2013) Implementatie van het EVRM en de uitspraken van het EHRM in de nationale rechtspraak: Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek. Radboud Universiteit NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  11. Peeters M (2016) Urgenda Foundation and 886 Individuals v. The State of the Netherlands: The Dilemma of More Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action by EU Member States. Review of European Comparative International Environmental Law 25(1):123–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peeters MGWM (2014) Europees klimaatrecht en nationale beleidsruimte. Nederlands Juristenblad NJB 2014(41):2918–2925Google Scholar
  13. Roy S (2017) Distributive Choices in Urgenda and EU Climate Law, SSRN Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3064346. Accessed 23 January 2019
  14. Roy S, Woerdman E (2016) Situating Urgenda v the Netherlands within comparative climate change litigation. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 34(2):165–189.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1132825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thurlings TJ (2015) The Dutch Climate Case - Some Legal Considerations, SSRN Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696343. Accessed 23 January 2019.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2696343
  16. van den Berg K (2017) De rechter en de politiek: een drieluik, 1st edn. In: Tjeenk Willink HD, van den Berg JM, Jensma F (eds) Rechtspraak en politiek: hoe leven die samen in het ene huis, dat democratische rechtsstaat heet? Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The HagueGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations