Abstract
AbstractLiability for causing or failing to mitigate climate change has long been proposed as an alternative, or backstop, to lagging international cooperation. Thus far, there has been very limited success in holding governments or individuals responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are considered the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change. The recent landmark decision inUrgenda Foundationv.Government of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment)breaks with this tradition. In June 2015, the Dutch District Court (The Hague) held that the current climate policies of the government are not sufficiently ambitious for it to fulfil its duty of care towards Dutch society. The judgment, and the accompanying order for the government to adopt stricter GHG reduction policies, raises important questions about the future of climate change liability litigation, the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, and the effect of litigation on international climate change negotiation and cooperation.
Highlights
Small as it is, the continued existence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands represents a sizeable victory of willpower and engineering over the natural environment
By the 1980s, the Netherlands had maneuvered itself into a position of environmental leadership, with respect to participatory environmental policy, which explicitly reserves space for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and interest groups.[2]
Given its historic experience with transboundary environmental problems, this leadership logically extended to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the Dutch government was able to strengthen its international influence through the European Union (EU).[3]
Summary
The continued existence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands represents a sizeable victory of willpower and engineering over the natural environment. The Court denied the existence of any directly enforceable (individual) right based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),[50] or the international ‘no harm’ principle, but rather referred to these provisions as meaningful in the interpretation of its duty of care under Section 6:162.51 This brings us back to one of the core questions raised by the District Court’s ruling: does the legal basis for liability in Urgenda – the Dutch onrechtmatige daad (tortious act) – have suitable equivalents to provide a basis for similar actions in other jurisdictions?
Full Text
Topics from this Paper
Cause Of Anthropogenic Climate Change
International Climate Change Negotiation
Ministry Of Infrastructure
Climate Change
Duty Of Care
+ Show 5 more
Create a personalized feed of these topics
Get StartedTalk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Transnational Environmental Law
Oct 1, 2015
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Dec 2, 2017
The Journal of Developing Areas
Jan 1, 2004
American Journal of Climate Change
Jun 6, 2019
Social Science Research Network
Sep 21, 2016
Environmental Research Letters
Mar 1, 2013
One Earth
Dec 1, 2021
THE SKY-International Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences (IJPESS)
Dec 1, 2019
SSRN Electronic Journal
Jun 21, 2011
Journal of Contemporary China
Sep 1, 2012
Jan 1, 2014
Transnational Environmental Law
Transnational Environmental Law
Oct 18, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Oct 11, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Sep 13, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Aug 31, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Jul 1, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Jun 21, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Jun 21, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Jun 19, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
Jun 14, 2023
Transnational Environmental Law
May 30, 2023