法院如何確立國家對氣候變遷之保護義務？──簡述荷蘭Urgenda v. The Netherlands案之一、二審判決

How could the Court Pronounce the State Breaching of Duty to Protect Its People Against Climate Change? A Brief Introduction to the First and Second Trials of the Urgenda v. The Netherlands Case

荷蘭的氣候訴訟Urgenda v. The Netherlands作為指標性的案件，其重要性不只在於該判決所確立之國家減緩氣候變遷責任，對於氣候治理進程的具體推進，其意義還在於促使人們重新思考法律途徑在此是否能扮演相當之角色，特別是法院參與氣候治理的可能。Urgenda案中，法院為建構國家減緩氣候變遷責任，所採取之國家積極義務之論述，可能成為往後其他法院介入的重要基礎。因此本文重心將置於簡介Urgenda案的法律論證結構，即荷蘭法院如何嘗試證立國家對氣候變遷之積極保護義務，並確認其內涵。

Urgenda v. The Netherlands, a groundbreaking climate change litigation case in Netherlands, is noteworthy not only because it unprecedentedly imposes a solid legal duty to the government to mitigate climate change, but that it demonstrates the potential role the judicial branch could play in climate governance. Nevertheless, the court should first render a convincing structure of legal arguments that underlies the state’s obligation to protect its people against hazardous climate change. Thus, this article aims to introduce how the Dutch courts manage to reach that and convey some brief reflections on discourses from both sides.