Supreme Court Whiffs on Climate Change Fight

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court

scholarly journals The networks of human rights and climate change: The State of the Netherlands v Stichting Urgenda, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019 (19/00135)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-234
Author(s):  
Ole W. Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Environmental Rights ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Dutch Supreme

Climate change litigators are increasingly relying on a range of different jurisdictional avenues and legal regimes. The recent Urgenda decision by the Dutch Supreme Court provides a surprisingly rare snapshot of the relevance of human rights law  to climate change litigation. Focusing on the Supreme Court's reliance on the environmental rights case law from the ECHR, this case note argues that climate change and human rights adjudications takes the form of an adjudicatory network. This network creates spaces for domestic courts to develop contingent responses to emerging climate change claims.

scholarly journals Climate change and nationally significant infrastructure projects: R (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Edward Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Infrastructure Projects ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Plan B ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In R ( on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214, [2020] 2 WLUK 372, the Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully by failing to take into account the UK’s commitments in the 2015 Paris Agreement when he decided to designate a policy formulated to enable the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport as a ‘national policy statement’ under the Planning Act 2008. An appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. The outcome of that appeal should help to clarify the legal significance of the Paris Agreement and will have significant implications both for expansion at Heathrow airport, for other major infrastructure projects and for other planning and environmental litigation.

scholarly journals The future of climate policymaking in light of Urgenda Foundation v the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-124
Author(s):  
Irene Antonopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
Tackle Climate Change ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Dutch Supreme

The decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation represents a breakthrough and a step forward in addressing the human rights aspects of climate change. The significance of the case has been recognised by commentators and the UN Human Rights Commissioner, who asked for a repeat of Urgenda’s journey in other jurisdictions. Despite the implication that other states have similar obligations to those construed by the Dutch Supreme Court, the influence of the case in other jurisdictions is yet to be seen. This article recognises the significance of the Urgenda case to the definition of state obligations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of their commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the article discusses the progress made in interpreting Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in clarifying state obligations to take decisive measures to tackle climate change in line with their climate action commitments.

A lesson in un-creativity: (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-349
Author(s):  
Joanne Hawkins
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Infrastructure Projects ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Missed Opportunity

Plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been the subject of ongoing melodrama. In the latest instalment, (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52), the Supreme Court comprehensively reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, rejecting the finding that the decision maker acted unlawfully in designating the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS). This commentary highlights that the Supreme Court judgment signals a missed opportunity to develop a more creative approach to the polycentric and dynamic issue of climate change in the context of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It argues that the decision is, if not wholly unexpected, a disappointing one.

scholarly journals Breakthrough in Parent Company Liability

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 714-748
Author(s):  
Cees van Dam
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Parent Companies ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Two English and two Dutch cases have recently clarified the (potential) liability of parent companies vis-à-vis third parties in relation to damage caused by their subsidiaries. They concern the decisions of the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta v Lungowe and Okpabi v Shell, the Hague Court of Appeal in Oguru v Shell and the Hague District Court in Milieudefensie v Shell (climate change case).

scholarly journals Urgenda: the Final Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-321
Author(s):  
C.W. (Chris) Backes ◽  
G.A. (Gerrit) van der Veen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Final Verdict ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Dutch Supreme

The final verdict to the Urgenda case provided by the Dutch Supreme Court has been called a victory in the fight to limit climate change and a milestone in public interest litigation, at least in the Netherlands. As a consequence, the Dutch state will have to reduce ghg-emissions by 25% compared with 1990 at the end of 2020. The judgment has attracted widespread acclaim for being ‘courageous’ and exploring unknown legal territory. However, a closer look at the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court still leaves many questions, which are address in this manuscript.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document