One of the world's most successful climate litigation cases thus far, the remarkable Urgenda ruling by a Dutch Court in 2015, survived appeal. In October 2018, the Court of Appeal of The Hague rejected all of the State's objections, including that on the alleged infringement of the balance of powers principle. The court confirmed that, when so asked by individuals or nongovernmental organizations, courts are obliged to assess government actions (including policies) against human rights obligations. By setting the required outcome of policies (at least 25 percent emissions reduction by the end of 2020), the court left it up to the Dutch Government and Parliament to discuss which policy interventions to adopt to achieve this outcome. The Court of Appeal also confirmed, and sometimes even put greater emphasis on, a number of important elements of the Urgenda ruling, such as the role of the precautionary principle, the issue of causality (including the ‘drop in the ocean’ argument put forward by the State) and the potential role of climate engineering.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰国诉Urgenda基金会：海牙上诉法院维持判决，要求荷兰进一步减少其温室气体排放量

迄今为止，举世瞩目的Urgenda是世界上最成功的气候诉讼案件之一荷兰法院于2015年作出的裁决在上诉中幸存下来。2018年10月，海牙上诉法院驳回了该国的所有反对意见，包括关于所谓的违反均势原则的反对意见。法院确认，当个人或非政府组织提出要求时，法院有义务评估政府针对人权义务采取的行动（包括政策）。通过设定所需的政策结果（到2020年底至少减少25％的排放量），法院将决定权交给荷兰政府和议会，以讨论采取哪种政策干预措施来实现这一结果。上诉法院还确认，有时甚至更加强调乌尔根达的许多重要内容。 裁决，例如预防原则的作用，因果关系问题（包括国家提出的“掉入海洋”论据）以及气候工程的潜在作用。