Transnational Environmental Law ( IF 2.6 ) Pub Date : 2022-06-14 , DOI: 10.1017/s2047102522000267 Laura Burgers
This invited response commentary engages with Benoit Mayer's case comment, published in this issue of Transnational Environmental Law, on the recent landmark decision by the District Court of The Hague (The Netherlands) of May 2021 in Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell. The Court ordered the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to reduce at least 45% of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared with 2019 levels. In this response commentary I build on and contrast Mayer's examination of how the Court arrived at this target. In doing so, I discuss the normativity of tort law compared with international law against the background of the ideas of Martti Koskenniemi. I conclude that the District Court legitimately qualified Shell's business plans as tortious. The specific reduction target is the result of civil procedural rules on evidence and the debate between the parties. In the light of this analysis, I respectfully reject Benoit Mayer's suggestion that sectoral practices should play a more significant role in determining corporate climate mitigation obligations. In my view, such an approach would be dangerously apologetic and lead to dystopian outcomes.
中文翻译:
![](https://scdn.x-mol.com/jcss/images/paperTranslation.png)
导致反乌托邦的道歉:或者,为什么助长气候变化是侵权的
本特邀回应评论与 Benoit Mayer 在本期《跨国环境法》上发表的关于海牙(荷兰)地方法院 2021 年 5 月在Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell案中具有里程碑意义的裁决的案例评论相结合. 法院命令石油巨头荷兰皇家壳牌公司到 2030 年将其温室气体排放量与 2019 年的水平相比至少减少 45%。在这篇回应评论中,我建立并对比了 Mayer 对法院如何达到这一目标的审查。在此过程中,我在 Martti Koskenniemi 的思想背景下讨论了侵权法与国际法相比的规范性。我的结论是,地方法院合法地将壳牌的商业计划定性为侵权。具体减量目标是民事诉讼程序规则对证据和当事人辩论的结果。根据这一分析,我恭敬地拒绝 Benoit Mayer 的建议,即部门实践应在确定企业减缓气候变化的义务方面发挥更重要的作用。在我看来,