TY - JOUR

T1 - An empty victory? Shell v. Milieudefensie et al 2024, the legal obligations of carbon majors, and the prospects for future climate litigation action

AU - Johannsen, Bengt

AU - Kotzé, Louis J.

AU - Macchi, Chiara

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s). Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law (RECIEL) published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2025/11

Y1 - 2025/11

N2 - In 2021, the Hague District Court ruled in favour of several non-governmental organisations in a climate lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It obliged Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions resulting from its global operations by 45%, relative to 2019 levels, by 2030. This important decision has been widely celebrated for its unprecedented clarification of the obligations of carbon majors to reduce their carbon emissions. The court innovatively extended the obligation to protect human rights to private actors, recognising the indirect horizontal effect of human rights. Shell, unsurprisingly, appealed the decision. On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal issued its ruling in the highly anticipated appeal case. The court ruled in favour of Shell, thereby setting aside the a quo judgment. The court found that Shell's violation of legal obligations had not been sufficiently demonstrated in relation to its scope 1 and 2 emissions, and refused to affirm a concrete reduction target by 2030 of Shell's scope 3 emissions. In this note, we offer an analysis of the appeal decision and discuss some of its possible implications. We broadly reflect on whether the judgment could negatively impact possible future climate litigation claims against carbon majors, or whether the decision is, in fact, an ‘empty victory’ for Shell and other carbon majors, representing a positive outcome for the global climate movement.

AB - In 2021, the Hague District Court ruled in favour of several non-governmental organisations in a climate lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It obliged Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions resulting from its global operations by 45%, relative to 2019 levels, by 2030. This important decision has been widely celebrated for its unprecedented clarification of the obligations of carbon majors to reduce their carbon emissions. The court innovatively extended the obligation to protect human rights to private actors, recognising the indirect horizontal effect of human rights. Shell, unsurprisingly, appealed the decision. On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal issued its ruling in the highly anticipated appeal case. The court ruled in favour of Shell, thereby setting aside the a quo judgment. The court found that Shell's violation of legal obligations had not been sufficiently demonstrated in relation to its scope 1 and 2 emissions, and refused to affirm a concrete reduction target by 2030 of Shell's scope 3 emissions. In this note, we offer an analysis of the appeal decision and discuss some of its possible implications. We broadly reflect on whether the judgment could negatively impact possible future climate litigation claims against carbon majors, or whether the decision is, in fact, an ‘empty victory’ for Shell and other carbon majors, representing a positive outcome for the global climate movement.

KW - Law

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105016394437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/reel.12604

DO - 10.1111/reel.12604

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:105016394437

VL - 34

SP - 270

EP - 278

JO - Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law

JF - Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law

SN - 2050-0386

IS - 1

ER -