Appraisal of Diversity in International Law: A Note on Self-Serving Biases and Interdisciplinarity
In: Amsterdam Center for International Law No. 2021-06
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Amsterdam Center for International Law No. 2021-06
SSRN
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 114, Heft 4, S. 729-735
ISSN: 2161-7953
The judgment in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation marks one of the first successful challenges to climate change policy based on a human rights treaty. In this case, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the lower court's opinion that the Netherlands has a positive obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to take reasonable and suitable measures for the prevention of climate change. Although the Supreme Court recognized that climate change is a consequence of collective human activities that cannot be solved by one state on its own, it held that the Netherlands is individually responsible for failing to do its part to counter the danger of climate change, which, as the Court affirmed, inhibits enjoyment of ECHR rights. In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court determined the exact level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction that the Netherlands is required to meet to comply with its ECHR obligation, specifically, a 25 percent reduction compared to its 1990 level by the end of 2020.
In: forthcoming in Rossanna Deplano & Nicholas Tsagourias (Eds.), RESEARCH METHODS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: A HANDBOOK (Edward Elgar Publishing)
SSRN
Working paper
In: European Society of International Law (ESIL) 2018 Annual Conference (Manchester)
SSRN
Working paper
In: Amsterdam Center for International Law No. 2018-12
SSRN
Working paper
In: Forthcoming, Iain Scobbie and Sufyan Droubi (eds), Non-State Actors and the Formation of Customary International Law, Melland Schill Perspectives on International Law (Manchester University Press, 2018)
SSRN