Due Diligence in International Environmental Law and International Human Rights Law: A Comparative Legal Study of the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement and Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
On 20 December 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court decided on a landmark climate change case: t…
Due Diligence in International Environmental Law and International Human Rights Law: A Comparative Legal Study of the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement and Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
On 20 December 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court decided on a landmark climate change case: the Urgenda case.Footnote1 In its judgement, the Court declared that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)Footnote2 imposes a positive obligation on the Netherlands. This obligation entails that the state needs to take appropriate measures for the prevention of climate change. In this context, the Court referred to the United Nations climate change regimeFootnote3 and the commitment of Annex I state parties to the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25–40% by 2020.Footnote4 Such obligations, as further developed in the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris Agreement), are known as due diligence obligations. Remarkably, the Dutch Supreme Court considered that positive obligations under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 8 (the right to respect for one’s private life, family life and home) ECHR were the basis for taking all appropriate measures to implement reduction commitments to prevent climate change.
Due Diligence in International Environmental Law and International Human Rights Law: A Comparative Legal Study of the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement and Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
On 20 December 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court decided on a landmark climate change case: the Urgenda case.Footnote1 In its judgement, the Court declared that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)Footnote2 imposes a positive obligation on the Netherlands. This obligation entails that the state needs to take appropriate measures for the prevention of climate change. In this context, the Court referred to the United Nations climate change regimeFootnote3 and the commitment of Annex I state parties to the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25–40% by 2020.Footnote4 Such obligations, as further developed in the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris Agreement), are known as due diligence obligations. Remarkably, the Dutch Supreme Court considered that positive obligations under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 8 (the right to respect for one’s private life, family life and home) ECHR were the basis for taking all appropriate measures to implement reduction commitments to prevent climate change.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-021-00188-5