Unique Court Win on Climate Change Failures

NETHERLANDS-RAINFALL-WEATHERA Personal Report from Femke Wijdekop:

Dutch citizens win climate case against the State: 24 June 2015

Together with 886 citizens, Dutch NGO Urgenda brought a climate liability case against the Dutch state. I joined this case as one of the co-plaintiffs. Our argument was that the Dutch state neglects its duty of care towards us—its current and future citizens—by not reducing CO2 emissions quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. We asked the judge to order the Dutch State to reduce its CO2 emissions with 25-40 % in 2020, the percentage that science and international agreements tell us is needed if we want to stay below the 2 degrees threshold.

Today was ‘judgment day’ and I what I heard in that courtroom exceeded my hopes and expectations. In a groundbreaking verdict, the judges agreed fully with the arguments presented by us and stated that the Dutch state has a duty of care, under Dutch tort law, to reduce its C02 emission to 25% in 2020.  The court ruled that Urgenda had standing and that the State acted unlawfully towards Urgenda, representing 886 citizens, under national tort law.
The court used European human rights standards, such as art. 2 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights; the precautionary principle; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the treaty of the European Union to interpret the ‘equity’ principle of the Dutch tort article (art. 6:162 Civil Code) and concluded that the Dutch state is liable for a tort of negligence towards Urgenda. The argument of the State’s defence, that climate policy is a matter of discretion for the executive power, was brushed aside when the court appealed to the protective logic of the rule of law and the separation of powers: the judiciary’s rightful place is to offer citizens protection when the executive exercises its power in such a way that endangers the wellbeing and human rights of citizens, and this includes the negligence of a government refusing to take timely climate action.

We, co-litigants, and the defence attorneys for Urgenda were amazed by the boldness of the court. I was deeply touched to think that something really seems to be changing in the world, signalled by the decision of this court. The  court could have so easily have hidden behind arguments like ‘the discretionary power of the executive to determine climate policy’, or ‘the relatively small contribution of the Netherlands to the global emission problem, thus refusing to establish proportionate liability’ or ‘the lack of a strong enough causal link between the actions of the Dutch state and the future damage caused by climate change’—let alone by simply refusing to grant Urgenda standing. Yet with all these arguments available to it, the court made a bold decision to take responsibility for its duty to acknowledge scientific facts, apply the law and do justice in this matter of extreme societal importance.

For me it was a moment in which my idealism touched ground and merged with the hopes of the other 100 co-litigants present in the room (some of whom held hands—and many shed tears). Hopes were confirmed and ‘mirrored’ by the words of the judge who agreed with our most important grievances and demands. Such was the surprise that Urgenda‘s lawyers had to pull themselves together afterwards, overcome with emotion and relief—TV news images later showed their teary faces and yet none of them really tried to hide their tears: they were proud to admit that they had put their whole heart into this case —into  what they described as ‘the case of their lifetimes’. I cannot help but think that some of this wholeheartedness rubbed off on the judges in this rightful judgment.

Regardless of whether the State will appeal against the decision, this was a huge victory for climate activists and environmental lawyers all over the world. It gives encouragement and sound legal arguments to NGO’s in other countries, and the opportunity to start similar class actions on behalf of current and future generations. It is my wish that this precedent will be followed by many more similar such cases in other jurisdictions, forming a ‘ius commune’ on climate justice, and that other lawyers and co-litigants will dedicate themselves as wholeheartedly to these cases as we did here in the Netherlands on this historic day.

Femke Wijdekop


Anna Grear

By Anna Grear

Anna’s work focuses largely upon questions related to law’s construction of the human being and the human relationship with the world, broadly conceived. Her scholarship calls on insights from a range of disciplines despite being firmly located within a combination of critical legal theory and jurisprudence. She has a particular interest in the themes of legal subjectivity and vulnerability, locating these themes in relation to contemporary globalisation and to a central concern with the implications of the materiality of the living order – including the theme of embodiment. Her monograph on international human rights, published in 2010, was described as ‘marking a new start towards understanding the ontology of human rights.’

Anna was nominated for the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Scholarship Prize 2012 and shortlisted for the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Senior Scholar Prize in 2018. She was Dahrendorf Visiting Fellow 2013 at the Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics. She is a member of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Theme 3: Challenges of Social Inclusion. Anna is also Invited Visiting Scholar at the Centre for Law and Theory, University of Westminster, UK; Visiting Research Fellow at Bristol Law School, UK and a Global Affiliate of the Vulnerability and Human Condition Initiative at Emory University, USA. She has held visiting positions at the University of Oxford, the University of Keele, the University of Waikato and at Emory University.

Anna’s publications list can be viewed at her Google Scholar profile page.

Comments are closed.