Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

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)

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.

Urgenda: the Final Judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court

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.

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

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.

The End of the Road: State Liability for Acts of UN Peacekeeping Contingents After the Dutch Supreme Court’s Judgment in Mothers of Srebrenica (2019)

This article provides an analysis of the Dutch Supreme Court judgment in the Mothers of Srebrenica case, placing it in its context, and comparing it with earlier and related decisions, in particular the judgments in the cases of Nuhanović and Mustafić. The Mothers of Srebrenica is a foundation established to represent the interests of the approximately 6000 surviving relatives of the victims of the fall of Srebrenica during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia (1995). The foundation holds the Netherlands responsible for not having done enough to protect the victims of the Srebrenica genocide. This contribution addresses the attribution of the conduct of the United Nations peacekeeping contingent to the troop-contributing State (the Netherlands), followed by the wrongfulness of the peacekeepers’ conduct and the State’s attendant liability for damages suffered by the victims. It is argued that the Dutch State’s international responsibility was only engaged because of the exceptional circumstances present in Srebrenica at the time. In the ordinary course of events, the liability of troop-contributing States is unlikely to be engaged if the Supreme Court’s review standard were to be applied.