题名

歐洲人權法下國家應對氣候變遷的積極義務：以荷蘭Urgenda一案為例

并列篇名

The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights: observing from the case of Urgenda

作者

李仲軒(Chung-Hsien Lee)

关键词

氣候訴訟 ； 人權 ； 歐洲人權法 ； 歐洲人權法院 ； 國家積極義務 ； Climate Change Litigation ； European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ； European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ； Positive Obligations of the State ； Human Rights

期刊名称

台灣國際法學刊

卷期/出版年月

19卷1期（2022 / 10 / 01）

页次

7 - 46

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

本文旨在觀察荷蘭最高法院在所受理的氣候訴訟Urgenda案中，如何運用歐洲人權法院過去透過案例法所發展，國家積極義務之概念工具，建立氣候變遷與歐洲人權法的連結，促使政府採取更多的氣候行動。自2019年荷蘭Urgenda案三審定讞後，2020年歐洲人權法院首度受理氣候訴訟，截至2021年底，歐洲人權法院已經累積四件氣候訴訟。這些不同但類似的案件，和Urgenda案相同之處是，原告都主張國家應本於人權保護之責任，負有積極保護所涉人權之義務。這顯示國家具有保護人權積極義務之法律論述，似乎可以相當有效地說明、連結（articulate）氣候變遷與人權價值辯證的關係。然而，由個別國家（荷蘭）之內國法院所形成的法律論證，是否能說服歐洲人權法院，並進而促成更廣泛的內國法實踐，顯然仍有待進一步觀察，並可由此反思內國法院與歐洲人權法院間，如何透過制度上與實質上的多重複雜互動，更大程度實現國際人權條約的內國法實踐。
英文摘要

This article analyzes the case of Urgenda ruled by the Dutch Supreme Court. In this case, the court conceptualized the notion of positive obligation of state to connect climate change issue with ECHR and thus urged the Dutch government to take further actions. The Urgenda case encourages more climate change litigations based on positive obligation of state provided by ECHR. Up to date, there are four cases pending in the ECtHR. It is worth noticing that if the ECtHR will embrace Dutch Supreme Court's conception and accordingly open up to a novel approach of incorporation of ECHR.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. Harrington, Joanna,廖宗聖（譯）(2014)。氣候變遷，人權，和寒冷的權利。中正大學法學集刊，45，1-35。
    連結：
  2. Liao, Fort Fu-Te(2000).The Right to Freedom of Expression and the Protection of Health and Morals — The Jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights.EURAMERICA,30,207.
    連結：
  3. 王玉葉(2007)。歐洲人權法院審理原則-國家裁量餘地原則。歐美研究，37(3)，485-511。
    連結：
  4. 翁燕菁(2013)。不歧視原則之經濟社會權利保障效力：歐洲人權公約當代課題。歐美研究，43(3)，637-707。
    連結：
  5. Tyrer v United Kingdom App no 5856/72 (ECtHR, 25 April 1978), para. 31.
  6. Cordella et al v Italy App no 54414/13 (ECtHR, 24 January 2019).
  7. Jugheli et al. v Georgia App no 38342/05 (ECtHR, 13 July 2017), para. 76-78.
  8. Ivan Atanasov v Bulgaria App no 12853/03 (ECtHR, 2 December 2010), para. 92.
  9. Giacomelli v Italy App no 59909/00 (ECtHR, 2 November 2006), para. 83
  10. Dzemyuk v Ukraine App no 55723/00 (ECtHR, 09 June 2005), para. § 69
  11. The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, Supreme Court of The Netherlands (20 December 2019), case 19/00135 (English translation) https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 （ hereinafter: Urgenda SC）.
  12. Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v Romania App no 47848/08 (ECtHR 17 July 2014), para. 130.
  13. Tătar v Romania App no 67021/01 (ECtHR, 27 January 2009), paras. 85+89-97+113+120.
  14. Kiliç v Turkey App no 22492/93 (ECtHR, 28 March 2000), para. 62
  15. Oluić v Croatia App no 61260/08 (ECtHR, 12 November 2008), paras. 29-31, 49, 60 and 62.
  16. 歐洲人權公約第 32、44 條
  17. Taşkın and Others v Turkey App no 46117/99 (ECtHR,10 November 2004), para. 107+111-114+117+119
  18. Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom App no 28957/95 (ECtHR, 11 July 2002), para. 74.
  19. Stoicescu v Romania App no 9718/03 (ECtHR, 26 July 2011), para. 59
  20. The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, The Hague Court of Appeal (9 October 2018), case 200.178.245/01 (English translation)
  21. Öneryildiz v Turkey App no 48939/99 (ECtHR, 30 November 2004), paras. 59, 71, 90 and 93+98-101+128
  22. Udovičić V Croatia App no 27310/09 (ECtHR, 24 April 2014), para. 139
  23. Ahunbay and Others v Turkey App no 6080/06 (ECtHR, 29 Jan 2019), para. 23.
  24. Brincat et al. v Malta App no 60908/11 (ECtHR,24 July 2014), para. 101-102
  25. Fadeyeva v Russia App no 55723/00 (ECtHR, 9 June 2005), para. 96+128.
  26. Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands, District Court of The Hague (24 June 2015), case C/09/456689/ HA ZA 13‐1396 (English translation) .
  27. Dzemyuk v Ukraine App no 42488/02 (ECtHR, 4 September 2014), para. 78.
  28. Centre for Legal Resources on behalf Valentin Câmpeanu v Romania App no 47848/08 (ECtHR, 2 Oct 2008), para. 101.
  29. Balmer-Schafroth and Others v Switzerland (ECtHR, 26 August 1997), para. 40
  30. Buckley v United Kingdom, judgment App no 20348/92 (ECHR, 29 September 1996), paras. 76–77
  31. Kolyadenko et al. v Russia App no 17423/05 (ECtHR, 28 February 2012), paras. 165 and 174-180.
  32. Nada v Switzerland App no10593/08 (ECtHR, 12 September 2012).
  33. Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan,(2015) 2015 W.P.(LHC) 25501.
  34. Demir and Baykara v Turkey, App no 34503/97 (ECtHR, 12 November 2008), para. 85-86.
  35. Hudorovič and others v Slovenia App no 24816/14 (ECtHR,10 Mar 2020)
  36. López Ostra V Spain App no 16798/90 (ECtHR, 9 December 1994), para. 51
  37. Hatton and Others v the United Kingdom App no 36022/97 (ECHR, 8 July 2003), para. 96.
  38. Soering v United Kingdom App no 14038/88 (ECtHR, 7 July 1989), para. 87.
  39. Budayeva et al. v Russia App no15339/02 (ECtHR, 20, March 2008), para. 133-135+147-158.
  40. Di Sarno and Others v Italy App no 30765/08 (ECtHR, 10 January 2012) , para. 107+110.
  41. Dubetska et al v Ukraine App no 30499/03 (ECtHR, 10 February 2011), paras. 150-156
  42. Fadeyeva v Russia App no15339/02 (ECtHR, 9 June 2005), paras. 69+105+124-134
  43. The United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
  44. Urgenda SC, para. 6.2+6.4-6.5+7.3.2-7.3.4+7.2.11+7.4.3+7.4.6+7.5.3+7.5.1+5.2.2, 5.2.3+5.6.2+8.2.1+8.2.6+8.2.5+5.7.1+5.7.7+5.7.6+5.7.9+5.7.8+5.8+5.7.5.
  45. Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland [2020] IESC 49 (Ir.).
  46. Ariani, Deniza(2019).The Effectiveness of Climate Change Litigation as a Venue to Uphold State Climate Change Obligations in Indonesia.INDONESIAN J INT'L L.,16,210.
  47. Dana Drugmand, Court Advisors Urge Dutch Supreme Court to Uphold Historic Climate Verdict , CLIMATE LIABILITY NEWS, (Sep. 13, 2019 ), https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/09/13/urgenda-dutch-supreme-court-appeal/.
  48. ECHR, Guide on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (version 31 December 2020), 12-13 and 31-37.
  49. ECtHR, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (31 December 2020), para. 8-10+37-38.
  50. ESTRIN, DAVID(2016).LIMITING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE: THE CRITICAL ROLE OF CITIZEN SUITS AND DOMESTIC COURTS—DESPITE THE PARIS AGREEMENT.
  51. Etty, Thijs(2015).By All Available Means: New Takes on Established Principles, Actions and Institutions to Address Today's Environmental Challenges.TEL,4,235.
  52. Fisher, Elizabeth(2013).Climate Change Litigation, Obsession and Expertise: Reflecting on the Scholarly Response to Massachusetts v. EPA.Law & Pol'y,35,236+255.
  53. Hilson, C.(2019).Law, courts and populism: climate change litigation and the narrative turn.RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON LAW AND COURTS
  54. Hilson, Chris(2019).Climate Populism, Courts, and Science.J. ENVTL. L.,31,395.
  55. Huang, Jennifer,Tigre, Maria Antonia(2016).Trends in climate justice litigation: The Dutch Case and global repercussions.CLIMATE JUSTICE:CASE STUDIES IN GLOBAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES
  56. Jacometti, Valentina(2019).Climate Change Litigation: Global Trends and Critical Issues in the Light of the Urgenda 2018 Decision and the IPCC Special Report “global Warming of 1.5° C”.GLOBAL JURIST,20(1),1.
  57. Lambrecht, Jesse,Ituarte-Lima, Claudia(2016).Legal Innovation in National Courts for Planetary Challenges: Urgenda v State of the Netherlands.ENVTL. L. REV.,18,57.
  58. Maljean-Dubois, Sandrine(2017).International Litigation and State Liability for Environmental Damages: Recent Evolutions and Perspectives.CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY AND BEYOND
  59. Mayer, Benoît(2014).State Responsibility and Climate Change Governance: A Light through the Storm.Chinese J. Int'l L.,13,539-575.
  60. Mayer, Benoît(2017).Climate Change Reparations and the Law and Practice of State Responsibility.ASIANJIL,7,185.
  61. Minnerop, P.(2019).Integrating the ‘duty of care’ under the European Convention on Human Rights and the science and law of climate change: the decision of the Hague Court of Appeal in the Urgenda case.J. OF ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES L.,37,149-179.
  62. Niska, Therese K.(2020).Climate Change Litigation and the European Court of Human Rights-A Strategic Next Step?.J. WORLD ENERGY L. & BUS.,13,331-342.
  63. PEEL, JACQUELINE,OSOFSKY, HARI(2015).CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION: REGULATORY PATHWAYS TO CLEANER ENERGY.
  64. Peel, Jacqueline,Osofsky, Hari M.,Foerster, Anita(2018).A Next Generation of Climate Change Litigation? An Australian Perspective.OÑATI SOCIO-LEGAL SERIES,9,275-307.
  65. Schomerus, Thomas(2020).Climate Change Litigation: German Family Farmers and Urgenda – Similar Cases, Differing Judgments.J. EUR. ENVTL. & PLAN. L.,17,322.
  66. Sophia V. Schweitzer, The Netherlands passed a law to protect every citizen from climate change, IDEAS, Jul. 24, 2015) , https://qz.com/461324/the-netherlands-passed-a-law-to-protect-every-citizen-from-climate-change
  67. Setzer, Joana,Benjamin, Lisa(2020).Climate litigation in the Global South: constraints and innovations.TRANSNAT'L ENVTL. L.,9,77.
  68. Spier, J.(2020).The “Strongest” Climate Ruling Yet: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment.Neth. Int. L. Rev,67,319-391.
  69. Voigt, Christina(2008).State Responsibility for Climate Change Damages.NORDIC JINT'L L,77,1+21.
  70. Wegener, Lennart(2020).Can the Paris Agreement Help Climate Change Litigation and Vice Versa?.TRANSNAT'L ENVTL. L.,9(1),17.
  71. WEWERINKE-SINGH, MARGARETHA(2019).STATE RESPONSIBILITY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.
  72. Winter, G.(2020).Armando Carvalho and Others v. EU: Invoking Human Rights and the Paris Agreement for Better Climate Protection Legislation.TRANSNAT'L ENVTL. L.,9(1),137.
  73. Zhao, Yue,Lyu, Shuang,Wang, Zhu(2019).Prospects for Climate Change Litigation in China.TRANSNAT'L ENVTL. L.,8(2),349-377.
  74. 吳志中(2013)。歐洲人權政策規範對法國國內法律判決之影響。台灣人權學刊，2(2)，69+73+75+81。
  75. 翁燕菁(2011)。私人與家庭生活的歐洲共識與善良風俗－《歐洲人權公約》體系求同存異之道。中研院法學期刊，9，179-269。
  76. 廖福特(2011)。國家積極義務與私人生活保障—歐洲人權法院2010年相關判決之檢視。台灣法學雜誌，180，45-67。
print cancel