当前位置: X-MOL 学术Transnatl. Environ. Law › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation: Ruling of the Court of Appeal of The Hague (9 October 2018)
Transnational Environmental Law ( IF 3.925 ) Pub Date : 2019-04-01 , DOI: 10.1017/s2047102519000049
Benoit Mayer

On 9 October 2018, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (the Netherlands) upheld the District Court’s decision in the case of Urgenda, thus confirming the obligation of the Netherlands to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared with levels in 1990. This case raised some of the thorniest issues in climate law. As the Netherlands is responsible for only a tiny fraction of global GHG emissions, is it right for a court to hold that a national emissions reduction mitigation target is necessary to prevent dangerous climate change and its impact on human rights? If so, how can this target be determined? The District Court and the Court of Appeal of The Hague have provided inspiring responses, although they are perhaps not entirely convincing.

中文翻译:

荷兰国诉 Urgenda 基金会:海牙上诉法院的裁决(2018 年 10 月 9 日)

2018 年 10 月 9 日,海牙上诉法院(荷兰)维持了地方法院在紧急情况,从而确认荷兰有义务到 2020 年将其温室气体 (GHG) 排放量比 1990 年的水平至少减少 25%。这个案例提出了气候法中一些最棘手的问题。由于荷兰只对全球温室气体排放量的一小部分负责,法院认为国家减排目标对于防止危险的气候变化及其对人权的影响是必要的,这是否正确?如果是这样,如何确定这个目标?地方法院和海牙上诉法院提供了鼓舞人心的回应,尽管它们可能并不完全令人信服。
更新日期:2019-04-01
down
wechat
bug