In light of the growing climate crisis, implementing innovative and far-reaching solutions has become ever more important. This belief is shared by many organisations and citizens who have turned to their courts to demand better climate action. Climate litigation has rapidly been increasingly, with more judges finding for the plaintiffs. Consequently, this is compelling governments to pursue more ambitious climate measures to tackle climate change. By and large, many have the ground-breaking Urgenda ...
In light of the growing climate crisis, implementing innovative and far-reaching solutions has become ever more important. This belief is shared by many organisations and citizens who have turned to their courts to demand better climate action. Climate litigation has rapidly been increasingly, with more judges finding for the plaintiffs. Consequently, this is compelling governments to pursue more ambitious climate measures to tackle climate change. By and large, many have the ground-breaking Urgenda Foundation v The Netherlands case to thank, as this was the first time a court ordered a State to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The claimants premised their argument on the Dutch Civil Code, Dutch Constitution, International law Principles and the European Convention for Human Rights. By using a rich tapestry of legal sources, it signifies that our current climate regime lacks a strong legal framework. This thesis therefore aims to offer legislative solutions to help improve the European Union legislative discourse on climate change. As the Urgenda case was the first case of its kind, its legal sources were diverse and the court’s rulings were innovative, it is noteworthy to delve deeper into the facts of the case to see if they can unveil new areas for potential legislation. As such, this thesis explores how the Urgenda case can help identify areas for renewed European legislation to help tackle the climate crisis.
Poignantly, the case identified a clear link between human rights and environmental law and recognised the significant importance of climate science in climate litigation. Upon close inspection, the following legislative solutions were uncovered: aligning EU policies with accurate climate science, recognising the need for the protection of future generations, ensuring that all those concerned with environmental matters can fairly access the courts and finally, guaranteeing that the natural environment is viewed as an individual right. As the Earth is edging towards a catastrophic future, the EU needs to undertake action before it is too late.
+
