Abstract

The article comprehensively analyses the case of Urgenda v. the Netherlands as the first successful climate litigation in Europe. The article analyses the arguments on which the Dutch courts established state responsibility for human rights violations caused by the failure of the state in the implementation of policies to combat climate change. The significance of this case is pointed out not only for Dutch, but also for international law. The second part of the article will show how the Urgenda case affected climate litigation that began to appear before national courts across Europe. Through a comparative analysis of cases, it will be pointed out that there is uneven case law in climate litigation before national courts. It will be seen how the Urgenda case had an impact on the initiation of climate disputes and before the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention is paid to the issue of the connection between the impact of climate change and the torture caused by the harmful effects of global warming, which was initiated before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. At the end of the article, the perspective of climate litigation is considered.

Highlights

  • U ovom slučaju u Nemačkoj, za razliku od prethodnih slučajeva koji su se pojavili u Evropi, Upravni sud nije ustanovio uzročnu vezu između globalnog zagrevanja i navodne povrede ljudskih prava

  • It will be seen how the Urgenda case had an impact on the initiation of climate disputes and before the European Court of Human Rights

Read more

Summary

Prva uspešna klimatska parnica u Evropi

Četvrti izveštaj Međuvladinog panela Ujedinjenih nacija za klimatske promene (u daljem tekstu: IPCC) 2007. godine naglasio je da države moraju značajno smanjiti svoje emisije štetnih gasova sa efektom staklene bašte do 2030. godine kako bi se ublažili efekti globalnog zagrevanja. Treba istaći činjenicu da je Pariski sporazum iz 2015. godine, shodno novim naučnim nalazima, proklamovao cilj da globalno zagrevanje ne sme preći nivo od 1,5°C (Spier, 2020, p. 322). S obzirom na navedeno, Holandija je osporila postojanje uzročne veze između smanjenja emisija štetnih gasova na nacionalnom nivou i globalnog uticaja klimatskih promena Njihovi doprinosi naveli su Okružni sud na zaključak da je država Holandija neadekvatno odgovorila na klimatske promene i da je napravila propust neadekvatno primenjujući princip dužne pažnje, na taj način kršeći običajno pravo S obzirom na svoj globalni karakter, zasigurno doprineti da se svetska javnost više angažuje po pitanju zaštite od klimatskih promena

Klimatske parnice u Evropi inspirisane slučajem Urgenda
Klimatske parnice pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava
Zaključak
Summary
Full Text
Published version (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