16 June 2024
‘Relevant Rules’ as Normative Environment
On 21 May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its much anticipated Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. This post zeroes in on one particular interpretative issue, and its wider ramifications for the development of international law, namely the Tribunal’s approach to Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (which enshrines the principle of systemic integration) in connection with the interpretation of UNCLOS. Although ITLOS did not elaborate in detail on its approach, as can be seen from its entire analysis, the Tribunal has demonstrated a clear and principled choice with respect to the content and application of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and its customary counterpart. Continue reading >>
0 
25 April 2024
The Paris Effect
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland is a striking example of the Paris effect: the influence of the non-binding collective goals of the Paris Agreement (PA) on the interpretation of domestic constitutional law or international human rights law in climate litigation. The Court’s decision proves to be an essential element in triggering the necessary democratic debates on which the PA relies “from the bottom up”. Reinforcing the procedural limb of Art. 8 ECHR will be an essential step towards further strengthening democratic decision-making in the societal transition to climate neutrality. Continue reading >>
0
01 February 2024
Milieudefensie v ING: Climate Breakdown and Banks’ Duty of Care
There is a trend towards climate lawsuits against companies based on their alleged duty of care not to emit more than a certain amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Currently, there are four such cases before courts in Germany, all of which have been unsuccessful so far. On 19 January 2024, Milieudefensie, a Dutch environmental group, initiated legal proceedings against the Dutch Bank ING, for the first time raising the issue of whether financial actors have such a duty of care. This case represents a significant milestone in the worldwide effort to transform the financial sector and curb its seemingly endless appetite for financing fossil fuels. In light of these proceedings, I argue that the German courts have adopted an imprecise understanding of what the duty of care entails and that an appropriate application of this duty can increase the accountability of financial actors. Continue reading >>03 September 2022
Czechia’s First Climate Judgment
Czechia’s first climate change lawsuit ended with a small sensation. On the hot summer day of 15th June, the Municipal Court in Prague ruled that four Czech Ministries violated the plaintiffs‘ right to a favourable environment. The violation consists in the omission to set any concrete mitigation measures that would lead to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by the year 2030 compared to the year 1990. As the Urgenda Climate Case and other landmark judgments have paved the way for climate action around the world, this first noteworthy ruling of the region blazed the trail specifically for other courts in Central and Eastern Europe. Continue reading >>
0
04 July 2021
The Grande Synthe Saga Continues
France’s highest administrative court ruled that the French government had failed to take sufficient action to mitigate climate change and ordered it to take additional measures to redress that failure. The Grande Synthe II decision of 1 July 2021 follows the findings by the Conseil d’État in a previous decision that France’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets constitute legal obligations that are enforceable against the state. However, how, and when to redress France’s failure have been, to a broad extent, left to the discretion of the government. This all but ensures the Grande Synthe saga to continue. Continue reading >>
0
15 June 2021
The Courts Strike Back
The Shell case, decided by the Hague District Court on 26 May 2021, is part of a growing body of climate cases. What the Shell case does is that it liberates the political-decision maker from the suffocating grip of investor state dispute settlement mechanisms, in particular the mechanism under the Energy Charter Treaty. Continue reading >>15 June 2021
The Power of Open Norms
In a judgement of 26 May, the District Court of the Hague found that Royal Dutch Shell has an “individual responsibility” to limit its carbon emissions by at least 45 percent by 2030. Notable about the ruling is the unwritten standard of care functioning as an open norm, facilitating the accountability of private power. The openness of legal categories not only entails a potential to drive forward social change, but it also implicitly highlights the political role and nature of private law. Continue reading >>09 June 2021
Shell’s Climate Obligation
On 26 May, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the fossil fuels company Royal Dutch Shell needs to reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019. Precisely, the court held Shell responsible for its entire production and supply chain. The ruling will greatly advance the implementation of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement and climate-related human rights. Continue reading >>
0
28 May 2021
Shell’s Responsibility for Climate Change
On 26 May 2021, the District Court of the Hague rendered a judgment in the case Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell that can rightly be called revolutionary. This is the first judgment of its kind in which a multinational corporation is held responsible, in part based on international law, for its contribution to climate change. Continue reading >>
0
30 April 2021