The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda judgment breaks new ground. It is the first court to order a State to reduce its GHG emissions. The State has to reduce its GHG emissions by at least 25% before the end of 2020. A series of important issues have been considered in review: can human rights serve as a basis for the injunctive relief sought?, the role of the precautionary principle, the need for a consistent policy, suum cuique tribuere, minimal causation (each State has to assume responsibility for ‘its part’), is the marginal causal contribution of Dutch emissions an insurmountable hurdle?, minimum obligations, a disproportionate burden, the role of the Paris Agreement, and the political issue doctrine. This case note analyses and discusses these issues. In addition it speculates what could or should happen if the State does not comply with the judgment. The case note elaborates on the prospects of the Urgenda judgment as a precedent for other national courts. Lastly, it discusses whether the judgment could be of any avail in shaping obligations of the corporate sector.

中文翻译：

---

“迄今为止“最强”的气候裁决：荷兰最高法院的紧急判决

荷兰最高法院的 Urgenda 判决开辟了新天地。它是第一个命令国家减少温室气体排放的法院。国家必须在 2020 年底之前将其温室气体排放量至少减少 25%。 审查中考虑了一系列重要问题：人权能否作为寻求禁令救济的基础？预防原则的作用, 需要一个一致的政策, suum cuique tribuere, 最小的因果关系 (每个国家都必须为“它的一部分”承担责任), 荷兰排放的边际因果贡献是一个不可逾越的障碍吗?, 最低限度的义务, 不成比例的负担, 作用《巴黎协定》和政治问题学说。本案例说明分析和讨论了这些问题。此外，它还推测如果国家不遵守判决可能会或应该发生什么。案例说明详细阐述了 Urgenda 判决作为其他国家法院判例的前景。最后，它讨论了该判决是否对塑造公司部门的义务有任何帮助。