In her response to my case comment in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, Laura Burgers purports to disagree with my analysis on two points. Firstly, she suggests that we disagree on the method that a court should use to interpret the duty of care of corporations on climate change mitigation. Secondly, she disagrees with each of the four inconsistencies that I identify in the decision by the District Court of The Hague (the Netherlands) in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. In this rejoinder, I respectfully disagree with her characterization of our disagreement.

中文翻译：

---

Milieudefensie v. Shell 中侵权法的司法解释：答辩

在本期《跨国环境法》中对我的案例评论的回应中，Laura Burgers 声称不同意我在两点上的分析。首先，她建议我们不同意法院应使用何种方法来解释公司在缓解气候变化方面的注意义务。其次，她不同意我在海牙（荷兰）地方法院在Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell的裁决中指出的四个不一致之处。在这个反驳中，我恭敬地不同意她对我们分歧的描述。