A Dutch Court’s ‘Revolutionary’ Climate Policy Judgment: The Perversion of Judicial Power, the State’s Duties of Care, and Science

in Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The latest move in the environmentalists’ fight against climate change involves judicial proceedings against states. In these proceedings, climate action groups seek court orders to force governments to impose more stringent measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A recent judgment by a Dutch court has given this strategy momentum. In the Urgenda case, the court ruled that the Dutch government owes a duty of care to its citizens to provide protection against the risks posed by climate change. On this basis, the court ordered the government to revise its current policies to ensure that by 2020 carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels. As this article demonstrates, this kind of litigation raises constitutional issues, because courts may not infringe on the legislature’s prerogatives. Climate policy-making requires a series of value judgments and policy choices, and the state has non-justiciable discretion as to how it meets its duties of care.

A Dutch Court’s ‘Revolutionary’ Climate Policy Judgment: The Perversion of Judicial Power, the State’s Duties of Care, and Science

in Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law

Sections

References

51

Synthesis Report 2007pp. 64/65.

62

Conclusie van antwoord 2 april 2014para. 5.1.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 10 10 8
Full Text Views 7 7 7
PDF Downloads 3 3 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0