Over the past decade, legal norms governing States’ obligations to mitigate climate change, and courts’ review of such efforts, have matured greatly in many jurisdictions around the world. In this article, we examine judicial decisions and consider future developments in Urgenda-style, or ‘systemic mitigation cases’ as we define them, at the national level. Systemic mitigation cases seek to compel a State or one of its organs to increase its overall mitigation efforts. These cases, which are growing in number, can lead to a significant increase in a country’s overall mitigation ambition. Yet a perceived lack of standards by which to assess mitigation efforts has given rise to judicial concerns regarding the separation of powers in adjudicating such cases. In response to these concerns, we present a framework based on international climate change law and best available climate science to assist litigants and courts in human-rights- and tort-based cases. We draw on principles developed by the Dutch courts in Urgenda v the Netherlandsand on recent judgments of other national courts, and identify a range of concrete standards by which courts may assess whether a State has met the minimum legal requirements of its duty of care in the ‘next generation’ of systemic mitigation cases.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.
Pay to Access Content (PDF download and unlimited online access)