Urgenda Decision sets a Precedent for Other Courts

On Friday, December 20, the Netherlands Supreme Court ruled in Urgenda v. the Netherlands that human rights obligations mandate that the Dutch government reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels and that it must meet that goal within the next year.

According to Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for Urgenda, it was the first time any court in the world had rested its decision on the human rights implications of climate change.  In particular, the court cited the government’s obligations to protect the environment under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights involving the right to life and the right to a private and family life.  Said van Berkel, “The court was very clear. Human rights protect people against the impacts of climate change and the government and parliament have to respect those human rights when defining their policies. That’s why this is a case for the courts to decide, because the dangers of climate change are so massive that they are human rights issues.” 

In the U.S., an earlier ruling in the Urgenda case was cited with approval by the federal district court in Juliana v. United States, a challenge to US government environmental inaction under a constitutional public trust theory.  The new Urgenda decision provides additional guideposts for U.S. courts considering climate litigation.  Analogous to the European Convention, Articles 6 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically provide for protection of the rights to life, and to a private and family life, respectively; the U.S is a party to the ICCPR. Likewise, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (while a Declaration rather than a treaty) protects the rights to life and to privacy in Articles I and V.  Beyond federal litigation, state courts examining the meaning of their unique state constitutional protections may be particularly interested in learning about the Urgenda court’s interpretations of privacy and the fundamental right to life.  

The Urgenda Court’s decision lays down a marker that other courts around the world will have to grapple with, and as Justice Breyer has repeatedly urged, U.S. judges should be open to learning about how other jurists, particularly in the world’s high courts, have boldly dealt with these shared challenges.