Climate Change Litigation: German Family Farmers and Urgenda - Similar Cases, Differing Judgments

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Climate Change Litigation : German Family Farmers and Urgenda - Similar Cases, Differing Judgments. / Schomerus, Thomas.

in: Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, Jahrgang 17, Nr. 3, 10.07.2020, S. 322-332.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{11f123b099924491a81e4233a64dafb3,
title = "Climate Change Litigation: German Family Farmers and Urgenda - Similar Cases, Differing Judgments",
abstract = "In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers' cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals. ",
keywords = "Climate Change Act, climate change goals, climate change litigation, human rights, Urgenda, Law",
author = "Thomas Schomerus",
year = "2020",
month = jul,
day = "10",
doi = "10.1163/18760104-01703005",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "322--332",
journal = "Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law",
issn = "1613-7272",
publisher = "Brill",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Climate Change Litigation

T2 - German Family Farmers and Urgenda - Similar Cases, Differing Judgments

AU - Schomerus, Thomas

PY - 2020/7/10

Y1 - 2020/7/10

N2 - In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers' cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals.

AB - In the Dutch Urgenda and the German Family Farmers' cases, the claimants sued the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to their national programmes. On the Dutch side, the claimants won in three instances up to the Supreme Court, while they lost at the German Administration Court of Berlin. A main factual difference between the two situations is that in the Netherlands, the Dutch government had, to a certain extent, withdrawn from its initial positions on climate policy. The judgments show that climate change litigation is necessary to gain progress towards a greater understanding of state institution roles in addressing the global threat of climate change, culminating in a better fulfilment of climate change goals.

KW - Climate Change Act

KW - climate change goals

KW - climate change litigation

KW - human rights

KW - Urgenda

KW - Law

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092024134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/18760104-01703005

DO - 10.1163/18760104-01703005

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85092024134

VL - 17

SP - 322

EP - 332

JO - Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law

JF - Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law

SN - 1613-7272

IS - 3

ER -

DOI