Is climate change too big to trial? Is tort law adjudication capable of dealing with a huge public interest like climate change? The answer to these questions is dependent on at least three different issues, namely (i) the possible interpretations of the relevant rules and concepts of tort law, (ii) the possible legitimations of tort law liability, and (iii) the public law questions involved (the constitutional position of the court included). Using the Dutch landmark case of Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, the author researches the issues involved. The conclusion is that climate change liability stretches the possibilities of tort law adjudication to the max and even beyond, depending on one’s readiness to adjust it to societal problems like climate change.

中文翻译：

---

太大无法试用？Urgenda 案例的教训

气候变化太大而无法进行试验吗？侵权法裁决是否能够应对气候变化等巨大的公共利益？这些问题的答案至少取决于三个不同的问题，即（i）侵权法相关规则和概念的可能解释，（ii）侵权法责任的可能合法性，以及（iii）公法问题涉及（包括法院的宪法地位）。作者利用荷兰具有里程碑意义的 Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands 案例来研究所涉及的问题。结论是，气候变化责任将侵权法裁决的可能性扩大到最大甚至更多，这取决于人们是否愿意根据气候变化等社会问题对其进行调整。