Abstract
In her response to my case comment in this issue ofTransnational Environmental Law, Laura Burgers purports to disagree with my analysis on two points. Firstly, she suggests that we disagree on the method that a court should use to interpret the duty of care of corporations on climate change mitigation. Secondly, she disagrees with each of the four inconsistencies that I identify in the decision by the District Court of The Hague (the Netherlands) inMilieudefensiev.Royal Dutch Shell. In this rejoinder, I respectfully disagree with her characterization of our disagreement.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Reference5 articles.
1. An Apology Leading to Dystopia: Or, Why Fuelling Climate Change is Tortious;Burgers;Transnational Environmental Law,2022
2. The Duty of Care of Fossil-Fuel Producers for Climate Change Mitigation: Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell;Mayer;Transnational Environmental Law,2022
3. De Veroordeling van Shell tot 45% CO2-Reductie in 2030: Over Legitimiteit en Effectiviteit;Smeehuijzen;Nederlands Juristenblad,2022
4. Obligations Arising for States without or against Their Will;Tomuschat;Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law,1993
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献