State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation: Climate Change Litigation and its Future

Abstract

Paris Agreement that provided global framework aimed at limiting the rise in global average temperature by 2 degree Celsius, preferably to 1.5 degree Celcius compared to pre-industrial levels have relatively failed in achieving the anticipated targets. The lockdown created worldwide provided little but much needed break to escalating emission levels. Environmentalists , ecology experts and citizens are urging to leverage this one time window to bring tangible action plans to tackle climate change .One of the discrepancies in Paris Agreement was that it side stepped issue of ‘equity’ and ‘fairness’ which is emerging in climate litigation before national and regional courts. Climate litigation has served as vital tool in holding governments cum member parties accountable .Urgenda ruling establishes itself as a landmark precedent since despite having no global mandate it serves as a beacon of hope for both future litigators and judicial forums, all around the globe to continue their fight against state and non-state actors by assigning them accountability for the detrimental acts so committed along with the environmental and human rights grossly violated. The authors envisage to justify the hypothesis stated above by analysing the ruling and deconstructing the core message therein. The essay is divided into various headings and sub-headings for easy reading and understanding. The paper begins by sketching a chronological overview of previous judicial rulings which failed, followed by deliberation of how the Urgenda ruling resides on a different pedestal which entails discussion on human rights, duty of care of state, triaspolitica, causal link, sustainability principles, usage of climate science and ‘drop in the ocean’ argument. The authors conclude the piece was examining the ruling’s role in future climate protection litigations.