"The Netherlands' Supreme Court upheld the landmark ruling in Urgenda v. the Netherlands, announcing its decision on Friday that governments have a human rights duty to protect their citizens from climate change."
Stoat has more, and some opinions.
4 comments:
Judges are not equipped to make sound policy decisions. They don't have the knowledge required to balance competing interests. They don't have the scientific or the economic expertise required.
Cheers
But judges do have legal expertise. Wasn't the crux of the issue whether the Dutch government had fulfilled their legal obligations made by signing onto European Convention of Human Rights (see the article)?
David - in principle you are right. However, the relationship between articles 2 and 8 vs. a particular climate change agreement is remote.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
Article 2 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to life. This means that nobody, including the Government, can try to end your life.
Cheers
I haven't read the legal ruling, but I'm guessing it decided based on (2) right to life, and (8) respect for one's home(?).
Strange that article 8 isn't written to be gender neutral.
Post a Comment