Abstract
This article is written around the time a Dutch court ordered the corporate group Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 2030. The aim of the article is to contribute to the conceptualisation of the phenomenon this judgement unveils in terms of greening human rights litigation supported by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). It addresses, firstly, how claiming the protection of the Earth before courts is occurring in a highly fragmented legal, economic and social context as a way to overcome the multiple obstacles flagged by the literature on the UNGPs. Secondly, it assesses how human rights litigation seeking global justice has evolved in waves with common trends, such as activism from social actors and courts that rely on arguments based on progressive soft law. Thirdly, it identifies two trends in the current wave of green litigation: the anthropocentric perspective that claims the protection of the Earth in the public interest and the ecocentric perspective that claims autonomous rights for Mother Earth. Finally, the article flags some gaps in this third wave of human rights litigation, particularly the risk of disregarding the third pillar of the UNGPs: access to an effective remedy for marginalised communities that are not aware of these ongoing developments.
Highlights
In May 2021, a first instance court in The Netherlands rendered a landmark judgement requiring the corporate group Shell to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% of its 2019 levels by 2030 [1]
Dutch parent company to respond for the footprint of the whole corporate group in terms of carbon emissions, based on the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which corresponds to Pillar II of the UNGPs [2]
The reality shows that even if the UNGPs were not intended for environmental harms, most of the claims lodged against companies headquartered in the European Union (EU) are framed under the UNGPs but refer to environmental rights [13]
Summary
In May 2021, a first instance court in The Netherlands rendered a landmark judgement requiring the corporate group Shell to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% of its 2019 levels by 2030 [1]. Social and ecological movements, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and directly interested actors (stakeholders) (SEMS), who have not necessarily been harmed, are strategically lodging claims against states and leading companies of GVCs, not to claim concrete remedies for concrete damages, but rather to represent the general interest in addressing the reported scientific adverse impacts caused by economic activities on ecosystems These claims are various: human health protection, food security, intergenerational justice and prevention of biodiversity loss, ozone layer depletion, pollution, obstruction of the right to participate in environmental decisions, etc. It discusses how SEMS strategically benefit from the complex and fragmented legal, economic, and social contexts.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
