On 20 December 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, in the decision of The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, upheld the lower courts’ finding that the State of the Netherlands is legally obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 25 percent by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The Supreme Court’s widely acclaimed decision is principally grounded in human rights law, with specific standards deduced from international climate change law and science. This case note analyses the role of international law in the Supreme Court’s reasoning, with attention to both strengths and weaknesses of the judgement. First, it highlights parts of the judgement that represent best practice in adjudicating climate change, such as the operationalization of an integrated approach to international law. Second, it identifies human rights questions resulting from the Supreme Court’s narrow focus on the rights of residents of the Netherlands in determining a specific mitigation target. It concludes with reflections on how the universality of human rights can be safeguarded in rights-based climate litigation before domestic courts.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰诉乌尔根达基金会：为未来基于权利的气候诉讼提炼最佳实践和经验教训

2019 年 12 月 20 日，荷兰最高法院，在荷兰国诉乌尔根达基金会的裁决中，支持下级法院的裁决，即荷兰有法律义务到 2020 年底将其温室气体排放量与 1990 年的水平相比至少减少 25%。最高法院广受赞誉的决定主要基于人权法，并从国际气候变化法和科学中推导出具体标准。本案例说明分析了国际法在最高法院推理中的作用，同时关注判决的优缺点。首先，它突出了代表气候变化裁决最佳实践的部分判决，例如国际法综合方法的可操作性。第二，它确定了最高法院在确定具体缓解目标时对荷兰居民权利的狭隘关注所导致的人权问题。最后反思了如何在国内法院基于权利的气候诉讼中保障人权的普遍性。