Aparato de Lambe

The climate case in the Netherlands was quite a hot topic in the media. News coverage spoke of a unique case and discussions were held in the political sphere whether or not the judge crossed his boundaries by stating what policy is required. This gave both societal and academic reasons to study the case more in-depth by analysing what influence the Dutch administrative system, its external environment and the notion of governance had on the court case.

The research question was formulated as; ‘To what extent are the decisions made

within the climate case in the Netherlands influenced by the Dutch administrative system?’.

The elements of the administrative system and developments which this research focussed on consisted of the Germanic rechtsstaat tradition, the trias politica, the notion of the welfare state, the influence of international agreements, civil society, developments in the judicial branch and the notions of Multi-Level - and Good Governance. These variables were studied using literature, news coverage and official documents to view if there is a correlation between the system and the case.

With the analysis, it can be said that many elements of, and developments in the Dutch administrative system had an indirect influence on the decisions made by Urgenda to undertake legal actions and by the court to force the Dutch government to reduce GHG emissions even more. Different aspects had been chosen to look at. First the historical views on which the administrative structure of the Netherlands has been based were analysed, especially theories on the public interest and public values. Although these theories were not of major influence on the climate case itself, it did explain the behaviour of Urgenda, the judge and the government by analysing different perspectives on public values and the public interest. Secondly more modern aspects, such as the rule of law, the trias politica and

76

the Germanic rechtsstaat tradition were analysed. Most of these elements of the Dutch administrative system did have an indirect influence on the court case, with the main finding that the Netherlands had a suitable environment for having the first verdict in which a government should do more to prevent disastrous effects of climate change. This was due to the Dutch focus on constitutionalism, the judge’s interpretation of the trias politica and the relative high value on protection and the governmental duty of care. After having analysed this modern view, three more recent developments since the 90’s were analysed, namely: developments in the judicial branch, developments due to International Agreements and developments in civil society. These developments showed that National governments lose control in all three directions (Upwards, Downwards and Sideways) and they therefore had an indirect influence on the court case by providing the suitable environment for the case to take place, as there was more external pressure and a decrease in autonomy of the national government. However more research on these developments would be appropriate as more can be said of the influence of these aspects. Lastly, the influence of current academic discourses of governance on the court case were analysed. This showed that the Multi-Level Governance might have some influence, as it was closely related to the reduction in autonomy due to shifts of control in the three different directions. Multi-Level Governance therefore did influence the policy procedures on climate change and the reduction of GHG, but did not influence the court case itself directly. Seeing how policies were made however, the judge did order the Dutch government to make more, or better efforts, which is related to the notion of Good Governance. It seemed that the Dutch government did not meet certain aspects of Good Governance, which would explain the judges’ point of view and decision. Again, both discourses were indirectly connected to the decisions made in the court case.

The answer to the research question is thus as following; the verdict of the court case is not that unique, as it was merely an application of the law, with the exception that it was the first time a verdict was given on the reduction of GHG that stated a government failed to do enough. This research found some noteworthy answers why this is the case. While the Dutch administrative system had no direct influence on the decisions made by Urgenda and the judge, and it would thus not merely be applicable in the Netherlands, the Dutch administrative system did provide an environment suitable for the verdict. Because of the system, Urgenda was able and driven to undertake legal actions and believe that this issue

77

was a matter on which the court should decide on. The decision of the court then was also possible because the Netherlands had such a suitable environment/system for giving such a verdict. It is therefore distinctive that this court case was held in the Netherlands specifically and that this verdict was possible. So what would this mean for the future of the reduction of GHG in the Netherlands and for cases outside of the Netherlands?