15 November 2024
Towards a Bundle of Duties
This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change. Continue reading >>
0 
12 November 2024
Lessons of a Landmark Lost
On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v Milieudefensie set aside the preceding 2021 judgment which held Shell responsible for its contribution to climate change. The 2021 judgment was widely heralded (though also critiqued) as groundbreaking and a precedent that could be followed elsewhere. While the Appeal judgment is unlikely to receive similar praise from climate activists, it contains important lessons regarding the responsibility of multinational companies for their contributions to climate change. Continue reading >>29 October 2024
A Leap Forward for Biodiversity Litigation
On 23 October, 2024, BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) and several individuals filed a constitutional complaint mirroring the Neubauer case, but directed at the biodiversity crisis. The claimants seek a declaration from the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) that the lack of a coherent scheme for the protection of biodiversity infringes fundamental rights and seek an order from the court for the legislature to take the necessary measures to adopt an appropriate, legally binding protection scheme within a clear timeline. This case presents a significant development in the field of strategic biodiversity litigation as the first systemic government framework case. It can be seen as the Urgenda of biodiversity litigation. Continue reading >>
0
16 October 2024
Admissibility Revisited
In an effort to force the European Union to adopt more ambitious climate targets, two environmental NGOs initiated a proceeding before the EU General Court, invoking the rarely used mechanism of “internal review” under the EU’s Aarhus Regulation. The reason for this unusual approach lies within a reoccurring issue of climate litigation: overcoming restrictive admissibility requirements. This new approach follows a path that had not yet been considered by legal scholarship or practice. While the line of argument is rather innovative, it goes beyond the boundaries of the Aarhus Regulation and is therefore likely to fail. Continue reading >>27 June 2024
A Global South Perspective on Loss and Damage Litigation
In June 2024, delegates undertook two-week-long negotiations at the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Conference. These meetings concerned the modalities of the newly instituted Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund and the provision of financial assistance to developing countries. In this piece, we reflect on the future interactions between the L&D Fund and litigations regarding L&D. We argue that these two phenomena must be seen as having a synergistic relation, effectively benefitting the Global South. Continue reading >>
0
20 June 2024
Downstream Emissions as Climate Impacts
In a 3-2 majority, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling today, significantly impacting the consideration of climate impacts in the oil and gas licensing process. While the Government’s approach so far has been to only consider exploration and production emissions, the Court’s decision establishes that emissions resulting from burning the produced oil and gas (regardless of where it occurs) have to also be considered. The ruling is significant as it is the first highest court decision to adopt this interpretation on climate impacts of fossil fuel production. It will no doubt have a knock-on effect on at least three other cases pending before lower courts in the UK, and potentially affect cases both within and outside the European Union. Continue reading >>
0
07 June 2024
More than a Sink
The difference between treating the oceans as a mere sink versus protecting them as a vital part of the environment has important implications under international law. These implications come to the fore when considering the relationship between the UNCLOS on the one hand and the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement on the other. While the latter treaties in no way legitimize pollution of the marine environment, their focus on oceans as sinks could be misinterpreted to deprive UNCLOS and the customary rules it codifies of a meaningful role in addressing climate change. Continue reading >>
0
05 June 2024
From Strasbourg to Luxembourg?
KlimaSeniorinnen has established a remedy which, in EU law, is not easy to locate and may actually be unavailable in light of restrictive CJEU case law. Whatever one’s views on this restrictive case law, it is a fact that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights now obliges the CJEU to do as much as it can to accommodate the KlimaSeniorinnen remedy and to interpret the relevant TFEU provisions flexibly. One may assume that, sooner or later, the CJEU will be confronted with a KlimaSeniorinnen claim. If the CJEU were to declare such a claim inadmissible, it will put itself in the corner of courts refusing to engage with climate change policies. That would be unfortunate for a court that has long been at the forefront of legal progress.
Continue reading >>
0
04 June 2024
Finding Light in Dark Places
Can the new advisory opinion interpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) move us beyond the lethargy of unmet climate change policy needs? The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established the gravity of this question by stating that “climate change represents an existential threat and raises human rights concerns”. The Tribunal acted both boldly and conservatively by interpreting UNCLOS as an independent source of international legally binding obligations to address climate change and ocean acidification. Continue reading >>
0
27 May 2024
A Small But Important Step
While no advisory opinion can solve the climate crisis, the ITLOS decision does provide an important push for action, both globally and at the national level. It cleared the way for the ICJ’s forthcoming opinion on climate change, demonstrating how a clear and solid line of arguments can be developed. Although the ICJ may decide differently due to variations in the questions posed and treaties interpreted, it is unlikely to diverge significantly from the ITLOS narrative or reject its findings on related topics. Continue reading >>
0