The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: Distilling best practice and lessons learnt for future rights‐based climate litigation

Abstract

AbstractOn 20 December 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, in the decision of The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, upheld the lower courts’ finding that the State of the Netherlands is legally obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 25 percent by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The Supreme Court’s widely acclaimed decision is principally grounded in human rights law, with specific standards deduced from international climate change law and science. This case note analyses the role of international law in the Supreme Court’s reasoning, with attention to both strengths and weaknesses of the judgement. First, it highlights parts of the judgement that represent best practice in adjudicating climate change, such as the operationalization of an integrated approach to international law. Second, it identifies human rights questions resulting from the Supreme Court’s narrow focus on the rights of residents of the Netherlands in determining a specific mitigation target. It concludes with reflections on how the universality of human rights can be safeguarded in rights‐based climate litigation before domestic courts.