| 英文摘要 |
The judgement issued by the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Climate Case (2019) attracted considerable attention, both in the Netherlands and abroad. For the first time, a supreme court in one of EU member states forced the government to take measures to combat climate change. The verdict by the Supreme Court is particularly relevant from the viewpoint of separation of powers and the rule of law. In the Urgenda ruling, the Supreme Court especially considers its own role in the rule of law, while ignoring the interests that are at stake regarding other state authorities, Government and Parliament. The judicial order to create legislation is not compatible with constitutional arrangements regarding the independence of Parliament and its members in the context of the separation of powers. The ruling furthermore clashes with the legality principle in the rule of law. The Supreme Court departs from the principle that a court dispenses justice in accordance with the wording and intention of the law. The Supreme Court does not apply the law but instead bases itself on political and scientific insights. In that way, the Supreme Court assigns itself a role in the political domain. |
