Urgenda vs. Juliana: Lessons for Future Climate Change Litigation Cases

In recent years, climate change litigation has increased but many of these cases have failed to achieve their stated objective(s) of legally coercing states to combat global warming. Nevertheless, more recent rulings have signaled a shifting momentum in favor of climate activists, gaining significant international attention. Among these rulings are two cases out of the Netherlands and the United States (U.S.)––Urgenda and Juliana. The former is considered a great success, given the Dutch state’s mandate to meet and increase its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The latter is considered a case to build upon, given that the presiding U.S. judge dismissed the case. This article seeks to answer the following question: what lessons may be learned from the success of Urgenda, and the failure of Juliana, for future climate change litigation? The authors highlight two key factors that play vital roles in climate change litigation: the specificity to which the state is coerced to pursue strict environmental regulation and judicial activism affected by the types of demands made by the plaintiffs.