Search

This paper analyses the way in which the responsibility for managing climate change risks is addressed by the Dutch courts in the Urgenda and Shell cases. A foundation called Urgenda initiated proceedings against the State of the Netherlands; followed by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) initiating proceedings against Shell, a multinational oil corporation with, at the time, its headquarters still in the Netherlands. This paper looks at both these examples of climate litigation, with a focus on what the courts had to say about responsibilities for managing climate change risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new wave of litigation is flooding the courts of justice around the world. The Urgenda case, in which a Dutch NGO made the Government of its country bend to its knees because the latter had not done enough in relation to climate mitigation, has set the model to be followed, and analogous claims proliferate in other places. The mere existence of such litigation has been perceived as a victory in itself. However, a careful analysis of that litigation reveals many uncertainties. It is worth asking whether the conditions of tort liability are really met, so that these claims may culminate in a finding of liability to compensate for damage already caused. Tort, apparently present in the debate, as happened in the Urgenda case, may end up playing a less decisive role than it should. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the opportunities to use international human rights law to protect one's right to life against the effects of climate change. It discusses four legal avenues: greening the existing human rights paradigm, formulating a new substantive right to the environment, public interest litigation and intergenerational justice. This is illustrated with case law from the European Court of Human Rights and various national jurisdictions. The main finding is that the human rights system should become more open towards public interest litigation and intergenerational justice, complemented by a broadening of the standing requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 24 June 2015, The Hague District Court rendered a historic judgment in the climate case ofUrgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands. The ruling marks the first successful climate change action founded in tort law, as well as the first time a court has determined the absolute minimum emissions-reduction target for a developed state, based on the duty of care and regardless of arguments that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend on one country's efforts alone. This article provides a summary of the case and background information to it, and some context with regard to the developments in climate change litigation. It closes with observations on the significance of the decision for climate change litigation in other jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]