Climate Change Litigation: German Family Farmers and Urgenda – Similar Cases, Differing Judgments

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Thomas Schomerus
{"title":"Climate Change Litigation: German Family Farmers and Urgenda – Similar Cases, Differing Judgments","authors":"Thomas Schomerus","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01703005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers’ cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01703005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01703005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers’ cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals.
气候变化诉讼:德国家庭农民和Urgenda——相似的案例,不同的判决
在荷兰“紧急议程”和德国“家庭农民”案中,原告起诉该州,要求根据各自的国家计划,到2020年减少温室气体排放。在荷兰方面,索赔人在最高法院的三个案件中获胜,而他们在柏林的德国行政法院败诉。这两种情况的一个主要事实区别是,在荷兰,荷兰政府在一定程度上放弃了其在气候政策上的最初立场。这些判决表明,为了更好地理解国家机构在应对气候变化全球威胁方面的作用,最终更好地实现气候变化目标,气候变化诉讼是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信