Corporate liability for climate change - Is Milieudefensie a sign of what is to come?
(2022) JURM02 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Where states have failed to take the threat of global warming seriously, private individuals and environmental organizations have confronted those contributing to it. By bringing the emitters to court, litigants all over the world hope to put an end to the current trajectory towards dangerous climate change. Within the field of climate litigation, both governments and corporations are targeted. The success for claims brought against corporations has however for a long time been absent, and not until 2021 did claimants succeed in holding a corporation liable for its emissions. The Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell ruling has, by environmentalists and legal scholars, been regarded as the most important ruling in the history of... (More)
- Where states have failed to take the threat of global warming seriously, private individuals and environmental organizations have confronted those contributing to it. By bringing the emitters to court, litigants all over the world hope to put an end to the current trajectory towards dangerous climate change. Within the field of climate litigation, both governments and corporations are targeted. The success for claims brought against corporations has however for a long time been absent, and not until 2021 did claimants succeed in holding a corporation liable for its emissions. The Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell ruling has, by environmentalists and legal scholars, been regarded as the most important ruling in the history of private climate litigation.
However, the legacy of the novel Dutch case is yet to be established. This raises questions surrounding the future of climate litigation beyond the ruling. Is it perhaps an indication of what is to come, or is it an anomaly in the field of private climate litigation? In order to assess the value of the case, this thesis sets out to establish the foundations for the ruling. The thesis identifies the issues regarding legal standing, legal basis, and causality, as being obstacles that domestic law has historically created for private climate litigation, but which by now have been surmounted by claimants, and due to legal and scientific development. It also examines the possibilities for private climate litigation arising from international law, mainly the Paris Agreement and human rights-treaties. After establishing these foundations, the thesis explores the Milieudefensie ruling, highlighting the impact domestic and international law had on the court’s decisions.
The thesis finds that the Milieudefensie ruling is the natural culmination of the entire progress of domestic and international law within the field of private climate litigation up to this point. Traditional objections by the defendants based on domestic law, such as legal standing and attribution, are dismissed by the Dutch court. The Paris Agreement and human rights-treaties are directly applied onto a ‘duty of care’ stemming from Dutch tort law, with the result of Royal Dutch Shell being forced to reduce its emissions as to not violate the interests of Dutch residents. The ruling exhibits the interaction between domestic and international law, and also the role earlier case law has had for the court reaching its decision. As such, Milieudefensie is not an anomaly but the logical next step for private climate litigation. However, the future legal impact of the ruling will likely be limited as the Dutch ‘duty of care’ is relatively unique to the Netherlands, and the case would therefore be hard to replicate in another jurisdiction. Private climate litigants will nevertheless draw inspiration from the ruling, and courts in other countries will likely be motivated by the Dutch court’s willingness to widely interpret domestic law to help combat climate change. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Eftersom stater i hög grad har misslyckats med att ta den globala uppvärmningen
seriöst, har istället privata individer och miljöorganisationer konfronterat dem som bidrar till den. Genom att föra de som släpper ut växthusgaser inför rätta hoppas kärandena kunna stoppa den nuvarande kursen mot förödande klimatförändring. Klimattvister kan rikta sig mot både regeringar och företag, men i just tvister mot företag har framgång under lång tid uteblivit. Det var först i 2021 som en grupp käranden lyckades hålla ett företag rättsligt ansvarigt för sina utsläpp. Domen i Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell är enligt miljöaktivister och rättsvetare en av de mest betydelsefulla domarna för klimattvister mot privata aktörer.
Däremot är det... (More) - Eftersom stater i hög grad har misslyckats med att ta den globala uppvärmningen
seriöst, har istället privata individer och miljöorganisationer konfronterat dem som bidrar till den. Genom att föra de som släpper ut växthusgaser inför rätta hoppas kärandena kunna stoppa den nuvarande kursen mot förödande klimatförändring. Klimattvister kan rikta sig mot både regeringar och företag, men i just tvister mot företag har framgång under lång tid uteblivit. Det var först i 2021 som en grupp käranden lyckades hålla ett företag rättsligt ansvarigt för sina utsläpp. Domen i Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell är enligt miljöaktivister och rättsvetare en av de mest betydelsefulla domarna för klimattvister mot privata aktörer.
Däremot är det fortfarande oklart vad för arv det relativt nya nederländska fallet kommer att få, och i samband med det uppstår frågor angående framtiden för klimattvister efter domen. Är domen möjligtvis en indikation på vad som kan väntas på området, eller är det bara en avvikelse bland många andra klimattvister? För att förstå det eventuella värdet av domen behövs även en förståelse för vad som
föranledde den. Avhandlingen börjar med att undersöka frågor angående rättslig
ställning, rättsgrund och kausalitet som härstammar från nationell rätt. Dessa har länge utgjort hinder för käranden i klimattvister, men har sedan dess överkommits genom rättslig och vetenskaplig utveckling. Avhandlingen undersöker även de möjligheter som internationell rätt har skapat för käranden i sådana mål, med speciellt fokus på Parisavtalet och mänskliga rättighetsinstrument. Därefter studeras domen i Milieudefensie och förtydligar det inflytande som nationell och internationell rätt har haft på domstolens beslut.
Avhandlingen fastslår att Milieudefensie domen är det naturliga resultatet av den påverkan som nationell och internationell rätt haft på klimattvister mot privata aktörer. Invändningar från svaranden som tidigare har varit slagkraftiga, t.ex. ang. rättslig ställning och kausalitet, avvisas av den nederländska domstolen. Vidare appliceras innehållet i Parisavtalet och ett antal mänskliga rättighetsinstrument direkt på den omsorgsplikt som följer av nederländsk skadeståndsrätt, vilket leder till att Royal Dutch Shell blir tvunget att reducera sitt utsläpp för att inte kränka de nederländska invånarnas rättigheter. Domen visar även på samspelet mellan nationell och internationell rätt, och hur tidigare praxis inom området påverkade domstolens avvägningar. Milieudefensie kan därför inte anses vara en avvikelse, utan var ett naturligt steg i utvecklingen för privata klimattvister. Däremot kommer troligtvis den framtida rättsliga effekten av domen att vara begränsad, då den nederländska omsorgsplikten är relativt unik för Nederländerna, och domen bör således vara svår att efterlikna i andra rättssystem. Oavsett så kommer framtida käranden inspireras av framgången i målet, och domstolar i andra länder kommer troligtvis att se till den nederländska domstolens villighet att brett tolka nationell
rätt för att motverka fortsatt global uppvärmning. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9080504
- author
- Åhman, Johan LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- public international law, private international law, comparative law, private law
- language
- English
- id
- 9080504
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-12 15:34:03
- date last changed
- 2022-06-12 15:34:03
@misc{9080504,
abstract = {{Where states have failed to take the threat of global warming seriously, private individuals and environmental organizations have confronted those contributing to it. By bringing the emitters to court, litigants all over the world hope to put an end to the current trajectory towards dangerous climate change. Within the field of climate litigation, both governments and corporations are targeted. The success for claims brought against corporations has however for a long time been absent, and not until 2021 did claimants succeed in holding a corporation liable for its emissions. The Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell ruling has, by environmentalists and legal scholars, been regarded as the most important ruling in the history of private climate litigation.
However, the legacy of the novel Dutch case is yet to be established. This raises questions surrounding the future of climate litigation beyond the ruling. Is it perhaps an indication of what is to come, or is it an anomaly in the field of private climate litigation? In order to assess the value of the case, this thesis sets out to establish the foundations for the ruling. The thesis identifies the issues regarding legal standing, legal basis, and causality, as being obstacles that domestic law has historically created for private climate litigation, but which by now have been surmounted by claimants, and due to legal and scientific development. It also examines the possibilities for private climate litigation arising from international law, mainly the Paris Agreement and human rights-treaties. After establishing these foundations, the thesis explores the Milieudefensie ruling, highlighting the impact domestic and international law had on the court’s decisions.
The thesis finds that the Milieudefensie ruling is the natural culmination of the entire progress of domestic and international law within the field of private climate litigation up to this point. Traditional objections by the defendants based on domestic law, such as legal standing and attribution, are dismissed by the Dutch court. The Paris Agreement and human rights-treaties are directly applied onto a ‘duty of care’ stemming from Dutch tort law, with the result of Royal Dutch Shell being forced to reduce its emissions as to not violate the interests of Dutch residents. The ruling exhibits the interaction between domestic and international law, and also the role earlier case law has had for the court reaching its decision. As such, Milieudefensie is not an anomaly but the logical next step for private climate litigation. However, the future legal impact of the ruling will likely be limited as the Dutch ‘duty of care’ is relatively unique to the Netherlands, and the case would therefore be hard to replicate in another jurisdiction. Private climate litigants will nevertheless draw inspiration from the ruling, and courts in other countries will likely be motivated by the Dutch court’s willingness to widely interpret domestic law to help combat climate change.}},
author = {{Åhman, Johan}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Corporate liability for climate change - Is Milieudefensie a sign of what is to come?}},
year = {{2022}},
}