AJIL 2020/4
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 10-2020 |
| Journal | American Journal of International Law |
| Volume | Issue number | 114 | 4 |
| Pages (from-to) | 729-735 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
The judgment in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation
marks one of the first successful challenges to climate change policy
based on a human rights treaty. In this case, the Dutch Supreme Court
upheld the lower court's opinion that the Netherlands has a positive
obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to take
reasonable and suitable measures for the prevention of climate change.
Although the Supreme Court recognized that climate change is a
consequence of collective human activities that cannot be solved by one
state on its own, it held that the Netherlands is individually
responsible for failing to do its part to counter the danger of climate
change, which, as the Court affirmed, inhibits enjoyment of ECHR rights.
In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court determined the exact
level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction that the Netherlands
is required to meet to comply with its ECHR obligation, specifically, a
25 percent reduction compared to its 1990 level by the end of 2020.
|
| Document type | Case note |
| Note | © 2020 by The American Society of International Law |
| Language | English |
| Published at |
https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2020.52
(Final published version)
|
| Permalink to this page | |