Blog

Climate change is no longer only a policy question. Courts now assess climate policy against human rights. In 2024 the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). That provision includes a right to effective protection against the serious consequences of climate change. In 2025 the International Court of Justice confirmed that states are under binding obligations. In the Netherlands, this led in Urgenda and in the Bonaire case to concrete orders against the State.

The short answer

Human rights operate in two ways. They give citizens a basis on which to bring inadequate climate policy before a court. And they fill in the standard of review. The court examines whether the state has laid down and is implementing an adequate reduction pathway, in the light of the best available science.

The state retains freedom of policy in choosing the means. That freedom is narrower when it comes to setting targets and interim targets.

Which rights does climate change engage?

Two provisions are central in European case law. Article 2 ECHR protects the right to life. Article 8 ECHR protects private life, family life and the home. Both provisions give rise to positive obligations. The state must take active measures against real and immediate risks of which it is, or ought to be, aware.

The prohibition of discrimination also plays a part. Unequal protection of groups that are particularly vulnerable may be unlawful in its own right.

The international framework

• UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement (2015). The preamble to the Paris Agreement calls on the parties to respect their human rights obligations when taking climate action, with regard for vulnerable groups and indigenous peoples.
• UN Human Rights Council, resolution 48/13 (2021). Recognition of a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
• UN General Assembly, resolution A/RES/76/300 (28 July 2022). The same recognition at global level. Neither resolution is binding, but both carry weight in the interpretation of existing treaties.

ECtHR: KlimaSeniorinnen, 9 April 2024

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland that Switzerland had violated Article 8 ECHR. The Court read into that provision a right to effective protection by the authorities. That protection concerns the serious consequences of climate change for life, health, well-being and quality of life.

Switzerland had failed to put in place an adequate regulatory framework. There was no carbon budget or equivalent quantification of the national reduction pathway, and earlier targets had not been met. Article 6 ECHR had also been violated, because the national court had disposed of the case on procedural grounds without examining the substance.

On the same day the Court declared two other cases inadmissible. In Carême v France victim status was lacking. In Duarte Agostinho and Others the Court rejected the construction of extraterritorial jurisdiction over 32 other states. As against Portugal, domestic remedies had not been exhausted.

The practical lesson has two parts. The threshold for natural persons is high; associations representing affected individuals have wider access. And the complaint must first be pursued at national level.

International Court of Justice, advisory opinion of 23 July 2025

At the request of the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. Its core finding is that states are under binding obligations. Those obligations follow from the climate treaties and from customary international law, including the duty to prevent environmental harm.

A breach of those obligations amounts to an internationally wrongful act. Consequences may attach to it, such as cessation of the breach, guarantees of non-repetition, and compensation. The Court linked this to human rights and to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

An advisory opinion is formally non-binding. Its authority is considerable: national courts use it when interpreting open-textured norms.

Inter-American Court, advisory opinion 32/25 of 3 July 2025

At the request of Chile and Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered an advisory opinion on the climate emergency. The Court formulated a heightened standard of due diligence for states and recognised a right to a healthy climate. It also identified a duty on states to legislate so as to prevent violations by private undertakings.

That opinion does not bind the Netherlands. It is, however, an indication of a wider international line in which climate and human rights are structurally linked.

The Netherlands: Urgenda and Bonaire

In the Urgenda case, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) gave judgment on 20 December 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006). The State had to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by the end of 2020 compared with 1990. The basis lay in Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. The judgment made clear that a court can set a lower limit without taking the legislature’s place.

On 28 January 2026 the District Court of The Hague held in the Bonaire case (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344) that the State affords the inhabitants of Bonaire insufficient protection against climate change. The court relied on Articles 8 and 14 ECHR and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR. The State must, among other things, anchor binding reduction targets in legislation and draw up and implement an adaptation plan for Bonaire. The State has appealed, so the ruling is not yet final.

What this means in practice

For states the direction is clear. Targets must be quantifiable, anchored in legislation and actually implemented. Policy intentions alone are not enough.

For companies the effect is indirect. Courts draw on human rights reasoning when giving content to the unwritten standard of due care in civil proceedings. We deal with that line, and with the liability questions that go with it, separately in our article on climate cases against companies. See also our overview of corporate social responsibility. For permits, standard-setting and enforcement, we refer you to our environmental law solicitor.

Frequently asked questions

Can an individual citizen challenge a state over its climate policy?
Yes, but the threshold is high. The European Court of Human Rights set strict requirements for the victim status of natural persons. Associations representing those affected have wider access.

Is the right to a healthy environment enforceable in the Netherlands?
Not as a free-standing treaty right. It is recognised in non-binding UN resolutions. In Dutch proceedings, claimants generally rely on Articles 2 and 8 ECHR.

What does the ICJ advisory opinion mean for Dutch cases?
The opinion does not bind the Dutch courts. It does carry authoritative weight in the interpretation of treaty obligations and in giving content to open-textured norms.

Do you have questions about how human rights work through into climate and environmental decisions? Please contact Law & More in Eindhoven or Amsterdam. We advise in Dutch and in English.