{"title":"米勒防卫诉壳牌案侵权法司法解释述评","authors":"B. Mayer","doi":"10.1017/S2047102522000279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In her response to my case comment in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, Laura Burgers purports to disagree with my analysis on two points. Firstly, she suggests that we disagree on the method that a court should use to interpret the duty of care of corporations on climate change mitigation. Secondly, she disagrees with each of the four inconsistencies that I identify in the decision by the District Court of The Hague (the Netherlands) in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. In this rejoinder, I respectfully disagree with her characterization of our disagreement.","PeriodicalId":45716,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial Interpretation of Tort Law in Milieudefensie v. Shell: A Rejoinder\",\"authors\":\"B. Mayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S2047102522000279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In her response to my case comment in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, Laura Burgers purports to disagree with my analysis on two points. Firstly, she suggests that we disagree on the method that a court should use to interpret the duty of care of corporations on climate change mitigation. Secondly, she disagrees with each of the four inconsistencies that I identify in the decision by the District Court of The Hague (the Netherlands) in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. In this rejoinder, I respectfully disagree with her characterization of our disagreement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transnational Environmental Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transnational Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000279\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transnational Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000279","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Laura Burgers在回应我在本期《跨国环境法》中的案例评论时，声称在两点上不同意我的分析。首先，她建议，我们对法院应用于解释企业在缓解气候变化方面的注意义务的方法存在分歧。其次，她不同意我在海牙地区法院（荷兰）对Milieudensie诉荷兰皇家壳牌公司的裁决中发现的四个不一致之处。在这一反驳中，我恭敬地不同意她对我们分歧的描述。
Judicial Interpretation of Tort Law in Milieudefensie v. Shell: A Rejoinder
In her response to my case comment in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, Laura Burgers purports to disagree with my analysis on two points. Firstly, she suggests that we disagree on the method that a court should use to interpret the duty of care of corporations on climate change mitigation. Secondly, she disagrees with each of the four inconsistencies that I identify in the decision by the District Court of The Hague (the Netherlands) in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. In this rejoinder, I respectfully disagree with her characterization of our disagreement.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
