State of the Netherlands v Urgenda
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| DOI | 10.3366/gels.2020.0008 |
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Pages | 104-106 |
The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda
Without getting too much into the timeline and procedure of the case, the outcome delivered will have a major ripple effect across the world. This is because of two issues that the case raises. The first is the link with human rights and the realisation and acknowledgment that climate change is impacting on our human rights. The second is the reliance on an emission target originally within the context of an IPCC report but then one that was supported at the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCCs Conference of Parties) – which the Netherlands was party to. These same arguments can be expected to be raised in different jurisdictions across the world.
The link to human rights is of vital importance in that it will ensure that different forms of justice can be utilised in submissions to courts across the world. These different forms of justice – such as cosmopolitanism, restorative, procedural, distributive and recognition – will ensure that human rights are adhered to in decision-making. Already other countries are considering the impact of their activities in terms of these forms of justice (but Urgenda making that link with human rights will embolden societal groups to take action). For example, in a recent decision last February 2019 in Australia (Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7), the Judge in rejecting the energy project (coal) noted the cross border effect (
To continue reading
Request your trial