Urgenda vs. Juliana: Lessons for Future Climate Change Litigation Cases

Abstract

Climate change litigations have been increasing in recent years where the majority of these cases have failed to reach their stated objective that is forcing states through domestic court decisions to adopt measures combating global warming. Nonetheless, there are some rulings that are currently emerging globally signalling that the momentum is shifting in favour of climate change activists and organisations as the courts level. Among these rulings are the recent two cases in the Netherlands and the United States, Urgenda and Juliana. The former is considered as a great success given that the Dutch state was ordered to increase its Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction targets. The latter is considered as a case to build upon given that the judge in the United States has dismissed it. For this reason, this article is seeking to answer the following question: What lessons could be learned from the success of Urgenda and the failure of Juliana for future climate change litigation cases? The authors will highlight that two factors play a vital role in ensuring the success or failure of a climate change litigation case: the specificity of the measure the state is requested to pursue by the claimants and judicial activism affected by the types of demands made by the plaintiffs.