On 20 December 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that the government had duties to protect its citizens’ fundamental human rights in light of the anthropogenic climate crisis. The court further ruled that the Dutch government must reduce carbon emissions by at least 25% compared with 1990 levels, by the end of 2020.
The Urgenda case, as it is known, is a landmark legal decision that could serve as a critical catalyst for court-driven efforts to limit the grave, even existential, threat of the climate breakdown.
THE HISTORY OF THE URGENDA CASE
The background of the Urgenda case is the increasingly sophisticated nature of the arguments advanced by plaintiffs in climate cases. Climate litigation is a growing global trend, coinciding with the Paris Agreement and the alignment of the global environmental movement with international human rights. In the courtroom, plaintiffs (generally NGOs and individuals) urge defendants (most often governments and, more recently, corporations) to aggressively address climate change and to enforce or enhance existing climate policies more effectively. The number of climate change-related actions currently stands at approximately 1,500 worldwide.
In 2013, Dutch environmental group Urgenda instituted legal proceedings to argue that the government has an explicit duty to protect its citizens’ rights from climate change. The initial ruling in 2015 favoured Urgenda and was a landmark ruling as one of the first climate cases to align human rights with the climate regime and inspired similar climate litigation across the world. The Dutch government stated it would comply with the outcome of the initial case, but has repeatedly challenged its legal basis on appeal.
A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO CLIMATE ACTION
David Boyd, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, has stated that the Urgenda judgment is “the most important climate change court decision in the world so far, confirming that human rights are jeopardised by the climate emergency and that wealthy nations are legally obligated to achieve rapid and substantial emission reductions.”
The Dutch Supreme Court invoked international law and the European Convention on Human Rights in outlining that the Netherlands has an obligation to reduce carbon emissions due to the risks of climate change—risks that threaten the citizens’ of the Netherlands right to life and well-being.
Because the court related on international law, the judgment has the potential to have an influence far beyond Dutch borders.
Rights-based approaches are a growing trend within climate litigation. The importance of such approaches is that human suffering is placed at the heart of climate action. It allows us to recognise the true extent of the climate crisis and reorient the global mindset to focus on what matters most: our shared humanity and each other, as opposed to finance and an extractive, ultimately destructive, economy. The Urgenda case confirms that people have a fundamental right to be protected from climate change by their governments.
Human Rights Pulse core team member and managing editor, Vaughn is passionate about sustainability and human rights, his scholarship and writing focuses on international law, climate change and transitional justice.