Domestic Climate Litigation: Discretion of States in Defining Emission Reduction Targets
Abstract
In 2022 and 2023, requests for advisory opinions were submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights asking the judges to clarify the obligations of States under international law to protect the Earth’s climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Behind the at times verbose phrasing of the requests hides a basic question: Does international law require States to take more ambitious climate action than what the Paris Agreement and the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) submitted thus far provide for? Several domestic courts have had a chance to answer a similar question under municipal law. Among them, the Dutch courts gained worldwide prominence for ordering the State of the Netherlands to reduce the country’s total GHG emissions by the end of 2020 to at least 25 % below the 1990 level and the country’s then-largest corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, to cut its total CO2 emissions across scopes 1 to 3 by the end of 2030 to at least 45 % below the 2019 level. IPCC reports (in particular, AR4, AR5 and SR15) and estimates of required emission reductions contained therein have been central to both arguments put forward by claimants and the reasoning by the domestic courts across jurisdictions. However, while the courts agree on the urgency of the climate challenge, they differ in conclusions as to the States’ ensuing legal obligations. The judgements of the Dutch courts which borrowed verbatim the reduction figures from the IPCC reports are rather an exception than the rule. This article reviews the different approaches to interpreting States’ climate mitigation obligations by contrasting the reasoning of the Dutch courts with that of the other domestic courts which were faced with similar claims — in particular, the Constitutional Court of Germany, the Tribunal of First Instance of Brussels and the Court of Appeal of Brussels (Belgium), among others. Some thoughts are offered on the range of interpretive choices that international courts and tribunals are likely to face in the pending advisory proceedings in the light of this domestic litigation background.
Downloads
References
Arias P. A. et al (2021) Technical Summary in Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pirani A., Connors S. L., Péan C., Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y., Goldfarb L., Gomis M. I., Huang M., Leitzell K., Lonnoy E., Matthews J. B. R., Maycock T. K., Waterfield T., Yelekçi O., Yu R., Zhou B. (eds.) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.002
Ermakova P. A. (2020) Sudebnyye iski k pravitelstvam i chastnym kompaniyam stran Evropy o zaschite klimata v ramkakh Parizhskogo soglasheniya 2015 g. (Velikobritaniya, GErmaniya, Niderlandy, Frantsiya) [Lawsuits Against Governments and Private Companies of European Countries Over Climate Protection Under the Paris Agreement 2015 (UK, Netherlands, Germany and France)]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Yuridicheskiye Nauki, no. 49, pp. 604–625. (In Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2020-49-604-625
Fisher B.S. (2007) Issues Related to Mitigation in the Long-Term Context. In: Metz B., Davidson O. R., Bosch P. R., Dave R., Meyer L. A. (eds). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, ch. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511546013.007
Gupta S. et al. (2007) Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements in Metz B., Davidson O. R., Bosch P. R., Dave R., Meyer L. A. (eds). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg3_full_report-1.pdf (accessed: 02.01.2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511546013.017
IPCC (2021) Summary for Policymakers in Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pirani A., Connors S. L., Péan C., Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y., Goldfarb L., Gomis M. I., Huang M., Leitzell K., Lonnoy E., Matthews J. B. R., Maycock T. K., Waterfield T., Yelekçi O., Yu R., Zhou B. (eds.) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001
Kilinski J. (2009) International Climate Change Liability: a Myth or a Reality? Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, vol. 18, p. 377–417.
Kuznetsov D. A. (2021) Delo Urgenda: problema razdeleniya vlastei v kontekste implementatsii ekologicheskikh obyazatelstv gosudarstv (Chast I) [The Urgenda Case: The Separation of Powers in the Implementation of Environmental Obligations of States (Part I)]. Zhurnal Konstitutsionnogo Pravosudiya, vol. 3, no. 81, pp. 33–38. (In Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4144-2021-3-33-38
Kuznetsov D. A. (2021) Delo Urgenda: problema razdeleniya vlastei v kontekste implementatsii ekologicheskikh obyazatelstv gosudarstv (Chast II) [The Urgenda Case: The Separation of Powers in the Implementation of Environmental Obligations of States (Part II)]. Zhurnal Konstitutsionnogo Pravosudiya, vol. 4, no. 82, pp. 30–38. (In Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4144-2021-4-30-38
Lin J. (2015) The First Successful Climate Negligence Case: a Comment on Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Climate Law, vol. 5, p. 65. DOI: http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4846.7044
Loth M. A. (2018) The Civil Court as a Risk Regulator: The Issue of Its Legitimacy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 9, p. 66–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2017.77
Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pirani A., Connors S. L., Péan C., Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y., Goldfarb L., Gomis M. I., Huang M., Leitzell K., Lonnoy E., Matthews J. B. R., Maycock T. K., Waterfield T., Yelekçi O., Yu R., Zhou B. (eds.) (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.
Maxwell L., Mead S., van Berkel D. (2022) Standards for Adjudicating the Next Generation of Urgenda-Style Climate Cases. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–30. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2022.01.02
Oppenheimer M. et al. (2019) Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. In: Pörtner H.-O., Roberts D. C., Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Tignor M., Poloczanska E., K. Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., Nicolai M., Okem A., Petzold J., Rama B., Weyer N. M. (eds.). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321–446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.006.
Roy S. (2019) Urgenda II and its Discontents. Carbon & Climate Law Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 130–141. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2019/2/8
Setzer J. and Higham C. (2022) Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2022 Snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. London School of Economics and Political Science. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2022-snapshot.pdf (accessed: 02.01.2024).
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
