Premium
The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation : The Hague Court of Appeal upholds judgment requiring the Netherlands to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions
Author(s) -
Verschuuren Jonathan
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
review of european, comparative and international environmental law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.37
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2050-0394
pISSN - 2050-0386
DOI - 10.1111/reel.12280
Subject(s) - appeal , law , high court , political science , argument (complex analysis) , government (linguistics) , parliament , state (computer science) , law of the case , court of record , jurisdiction , original jurisdiction , politics , algorithm , biochemistry , chemistry , linguistics , philosophy , computer science
One of the world's most successful climate litigation cases thus far, the remarkable Urgenda ruling by a Dutch Court in 2015, survived appeal. In October 2018, the Court of Appeal of The Hague rejected all of the State's objections, including that on the alleged infringement of the balance of powers principle. The court confirmed that, when so asked by individuals or nongovernmental organizations, courts are obliged to assess government actions (including policies) against human rights obligations. By setting the required outcome of policies (at least 25 percent emissions reduction by the end of 2020), the court left it up to the Dutch Government and Parliament to discuss which policy interventions to adopt to achieve this outcome. The Court of Appeal also confirmed, and sometimes even put greater emphasis on, a number of important elements of the Urgenda ruling, such as the role of the precautionary principle, the issue of causality (including the ‘drop in the ocean’ argument put forward by the State) and the potential role of climate engineering.