荷兰的紧急议程案:通过法庭创造一场革命

M. Minnesma
{"title":"荷兰的紧急议程案:通过法庭创造一场革命","authors":"M. Minnesma","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Dutch NGO Urgenda demanded greater action from the Dutch Government by suing it in 2013 for failing to implement effective climate policies to live up to its own acknowledged goal of 25-40% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. With 886 co-plaintiffs Urgenda won in 2015 the biggest climate lawsuit that had ever been filed at that time. The District Court The Hague decided that there was a breach of the duty of care for taking insufficient measures to prevent dangerous climate change (unlawful hazardous negligence). The State appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all 29 arguments. The Court did agree with Urgenda, that filed one cross appeal, that the State also owed a duty of care under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In December 2019 the Supreme Court of the Netherlands also upheld the decision. This case is seen as a ‘rights turn’ in climate change litigation.","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"9 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Urgenda case in the Netherlands: creating a revolution through the courts\",\"authors\":\"M. Minnesma\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/9781800371781.00026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Dutch NGO Urgenda demanded greater action from the Dutch Government by suing it in 2013 for failing to implement effective climate policies to live up to its own acknowledged goal of 25-40% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. With 886 co-plaintiffs Urgenda won in 2015 the biggest climate lawsuit that had ever been filed at that time. The District Court The Hague decided that there was a breach of the duty of care for taking insufficient measures to prevent dangerous climate change (unlawful hazardous negligence). The State appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all 29 arguments. The Court did agree with Urgenda, that filed one cross appeal, that the State also owed a duty of care under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In December 2019 the Supreme Court of the Netherlands also upheld the decision. This case is seen as a ‘rights turn’ in climate change litigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":256332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Standing up for a Sustainable World\",\"volume\":\"9 3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Standing up for a Sustainable World\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2013年,荷兰非政府组织“紧急议程”(Urgenda)起诉荷兰政府未能实施有效的气候政策,未能实现到2020年温室气体减排25%至40%的既定目标,要求政府采取更大的行动。2015年,共有886名共同原告的“紧急议程”赢得了当时最大的气候诉讼。海牙地区法院裁定,由于没有采取足够的措施来防止危险的气候变化(非法危险疏忽),因此违反了注意义务。国家提出上诉,但上诉法院驳回了所有29项论点。法院确实同意提出一项交叉上诉的Urgenda的意见,即根据《欧洲人权公约》,国家也负有注意义务。2019年12月,荷兰最高法院也维持了这一决定。此案被视为气候变化诉讼中的一次“权利转向”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Urgenda case in the Netherlands: creating a revolution through the courts
The Dutch NGO Urgenda demanded greater action from the Dutch Government by suing it in 2013 for failing to implement effective climate policies to live up to its own acknowledged goal of 25-40% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. With 886 co-plaintiffs Urgenda won in 2015 the biggest climate lawsuit that had ever been filed at that time. The District Court The Hague decided that there was a breach of the duty of care for taking insufficient measures to prevent dangerous climate change (unlawful hazardous negligence). The State appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all 29 arguments. The Court did agree with Urgenda, that filed one cross appeal, that the State also owed a duty of care under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In December 2019 the Supreme Court of the Netherlands also upheld the decision. This case is seen as a ‘rights turn’ in climate change litigation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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