Litigation involving climate change is on the increase both domestically and internationally and the Supreme Court's judgment in Friends of the Earth Ltd joins that list. While it was not as directly concerned with the implications of climate change as, perhaps, recent case law from the Netherlands or Australia, the case has significant implications including in terms of future litigation involving human rights challenges based on climate change. Three aspects of the judgment in particular warrant consideration. First, the legitimacy of the Court's purposive interpretation of the meaning of ‘Government policy’. Second, the Supreme Court left unanswered the question of whether the Paris Agreement was so ‘obviously material’ to the exercise of the relevant discretion that a failure to have regard to it would be Wednesbury unreasonable. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that designating the Airports National Policy Statement would interfere with any rights contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. This case analysis examines each of these aspects of the judgment.

中文翻译：

---

地球之友：“政府政策”、相关考虑和人权

涉及气候变化的诉讼在国内和国际上都在增加，最高法院对地球之友有限公司的判决也加入了这一名单。虽然它不像荷兰或澳大利亚最近的判例法那样直接关注气候变化的影响，但该案件具有重大影响，包括在未来涉及基于气候变化的人权挑战的诉讼方面。该判决的三个方面尤其值得考虑。第一，法院对“政府政策”含义的目的性解释的合法性。其次，最高法院没有回答巴黎协定对行使相关酌处权是否如此“明显重要”以致不考虑该协定将是温斯伯里不合理的问题。最后，最高法院驳回了关于指定机场国家政策声明会干扰《欧洲人权公约》中包含的任何权利的主张。本案例分析检查了判决的这些方面。