国家和欧盟温室气体减排目标违反《欧洲人权公约》:一般政策目标的司法审查

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Constitutional Law Review Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S1574019622000098
L. Besselink
{"title":"国家和欧盟温室气体减排目标违反《欧洲人权公约》:一般政策目标的司法审查","authors":"L. Besselink","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some time ago, on 20 December 2019, the Dutch court of cassation, the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court), ruled that the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions1 by at least 20% compared to those of 1990 by the end of the year 2020, set by the Netherlands government in accordance with EU minimum targets, infringes the right to life and the right to private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.2 Even more significantly, it upheld the order of the District Court of The Hague, and sustained at the Appeals Court, that the State of the Netherlands – appearing in court as a legal person under Dutch civil law – must reduce the joint volume of annual greenhouse gas emissions, or have them reduced, by at least 25% at the end of 2020 compared to the emission level of the year 1990. This Urgenda case has by now generated a huge amount of commentary, in all its three instances, mostly positive; precisely on the","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The National and EU Targets for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Infringe the ECHR: The Judicial Review of General Policy Objectives\",\"authors\":\"L. Besselink\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1574019622000098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some time ago, on 20 December 2019, the Dutch court of cassation, the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court), ruled that the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions1 by at least 20% compared to those of 1990 by the end of the year 2020, set by the Netherlands government in accordance with EU minimum targets, infringes the right to life and the right to private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.2 Even more significantly, it upheld the order of the District Court of The Hague, and sustained at the Appeals Court, that the State of the Netherlands – appearing in court as a legal person under Dutch civil law – must reduce the joint volume of annual greenhouse gas emissions, or have them reduced, by at least 25% at the end of 2020 compared to the emission level of the year 1990. This Urgenda case has by now generated a huge amount of commentary, in all its three instances, mostly positive; precisely on the\",\"PeriodicalId\":45815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Constitutional Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Constitutional Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000098\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000098","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不久前,2019年12月20日,荷兰最高法院裁定,荷兰政府根据欧盟最低目标设定的到2020年底将温室气体排放量1比1990年至少减少20%的目标,侵犯了《欧洲人权公约》2第2条和第8条规定的生命权以及私人和家庭生活权,荷兰国——根据荷兰民法以法人身份出庭——必须在2020年底将年度温室气体排放总量与1990年的排放水平相比至少减少25%。到目前为止,Urgenda案已经引起了大量评论,在这三起案件中,大多数都是正面的;正是在
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The National and EU Targets for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Infringe the ECHR: The Judicial Review of General Policy Objectives
Some time ago, on 20 December 2019, the Dutch court of cassation, the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court), ruled that the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions1 by at least 20% compared to those of 1990 by the end of the year 2020, set by the Netherlands government in accordance with EU minimum targets, infringes the right to life and the right to private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.2 Even more significantly, it upheld the order of the District Court of The Hague, and sustained at the Appeals Court, that the State of the Netherlands – appearing in court as a legal person under Dutch civil law – must reduce the joint volume of annual greenhouse gas emissions, or have them reduced, by at least 25% at the end of 2020 compared to the emission level of the year 1990. This Urgenda case has by now generated a huge amount of commentary, in all its three instances, mostly positive; precisely on the
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst), a peer reviewed English language journal, is a platform for advancing the study of European constitutional law, its history and evolution. Its scope is European law and constitutional law, history and theory, comparative law and jurisprudence. Published triannually, it contains articles on doctrine, scholarship and history, plus jurisprudence and book reviews. However, the premier issue includes more than twenty short articles by leading experts, each addressing a single topic in the Draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. EuConst is addressed at academics, professionals, politicians and others involved or interested in the European constitutional process.
期刊最新文献
How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices A Doctrinal Approach to Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Sweden Constitutional Courts as Guarantors of EU Charter Rights: A Rhetorical Perspective on Constitutional Change in Austria and Germany Constitutional Referrals by Ordinary Courts: A Platform for Judicial Dialogue and Another Toolkit for Judicial Resistance? Of Winners and Losers: A Commentary of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ORD Judgment of 6 December 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1