Following in the footsteps of the landmark climate-related judgment in Urgenda v The State of the Netherlands, the Netherlands continues to be at the forefront of climate-related litigation. On 28 January 2026, the District Court of the Hague (the Court) issued an important decision on the treatment of overseas municipalities or territories, finding that the current climate policies adopted by the Netherlands failed to adequately protect the residents of Bonaire, a Dutch special territory located in the Caribbean.
It was found that the Netherlands was not on track to limit its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficiently to remain below 1.5 °C global warming; furthermore, it had failed to inform and involve or protect the residents on Bonaire from the effects of climate change. As a result, the Netherlands has breached the rights of the inhabitants on Bonaire under relevant articles of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), also resulting in discriminatory or unequal treatment.
The Court ordered the Netherlands to:
- Incorporate absolute emission reduction targets up to 2050 for the entire economy into national legislation, including intermediate targets and pathways for the entire period
- Draft and implement a national adaptation plan that includes Bonaire by 2030
Building on European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland and Duarte Agostinho v Portugal, the judgment makes clear that a State can be held liable for climate-related human rights breaches outside its primary borders, where it administers and governs a special jurisdiction beyond those borders.
For many small islands, particularly those vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, administrative ties to their sovereign European states may now provide a pathway to secure appropriate climate measures or support via human rights actions. By comparison, efforts by inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands to challenge the climate policies of the Australian government in the common law of negligence were unsuccessful last year.
For corporates and their insurers, although this decision is not directly applicable to businesses, the context of the judgment is important. As noted within the judgment, the limiting of GHG emissions will require "highly complex and comprehensive sets of co-ordinated actions, policy measures and investments – in both the public and private sectors." This mirrors comments in previous judgments and international advisory opinions that courts expect large emitters to do their part to reduce emissions, and they may face litigation in respect of any failures. Continued pressure on countries to implement stronger climate action, and any subsequent regulation of private actors in their borders, will inevitably impact companies.
Details of the action
Bonaire is the southernmost island of the Caribbean Netherlands, and has formally been part of the Netherlands (the State) since 2010.
The action, brought by Greenpeace Netherlands on behalf of residents of Bonaire, alleged that the State has not taken action to protect those same residents from the effects of climate change. It was alleged that these failures were in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention. The Court accepted Bonaire's exposure to climate change had been apparent for many years; by 2050, a large area containing key infrastructure and buildings on the island will most likely be inundated by rising waters. This will obviously have significant consequences for public health, nature, culture and the economy in Bonaire.
The Court acknowledged the State's argument that the Netherlands is a minor source of global GHG emissions, and meeting proposed climate targets would not make an 'immediate difference' to warming or the effect on Bonaire residents. However, the Court stated it is not justifiable for a State to deny its own shared responsibility by referring to other States' failures.
Mitigation and adaptation measures
In assessing whether the Netherlands was fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, the Court applied the assessment framework devised in the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling. In this action, the ECHR only assessed the complaints against the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, the right to respect for private and family life.
This special framework was devised with an acknowledgment of the complexity of assessing human rights complaints related to climate change. The assessment of whether the State fulfilled its positive obligations under Article 8 was evaluated as a whole, including both mitigation efforts (lowering GHG emissions) and adaptation steps (managing climate change impacts).
Regarding the alleged breaches of Article 2 by the State, the Court noted that the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling indicated (but did not clarify specifically) that the framework for assessing collective complaints under Article 2 (the right to life) was similar but involved a higher threshold than Article 8 complaints. Here, the Court was not satisfied that an acute life-threatening situation existed for the inhabitants of Bonaire. Much would depend on the circumstances of the inhabitants, including the adaptation measures to be taken in the coming years. In this instance, it did not justify an assessment of the State's (in)action against Article 2, instead assessing the claims against Article 8.
Mitigation efforts
As part of the KlimaSeniorinnen Article 8 assessment, the Court summarised the legal framework for fulfilling mitigation obligations such as binding intermediate GHG emissions targets and pathways, and general measures supporting national or global mitigation commitments (such as the UN Climate Convention).
The Court found that the Netherlands' current climate policy was insufficient to meet the goals of limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5 °C or meeting the minimum standards required of a contracting party to the UN Climate Convention. The State conceded it was "highly unlikely" to achieve the current emissions-reductions targets.
Dutch emissions reduction standards were inadequate; they were based on different parameters and emission sources to those required by the UN standards. The targets did not include, or fully include, emissions from aviation and shipping. The Court also focused on the fact that the State had not clearly quantified how much emission allowance it still had as part of the global emission budget to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.
Adaptation efforts
The legal framework for fulfilling adaptation obligations requires an assessment of instruments such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. These emphasise the importance of accounting for specific needs and interest of those areas vulnerable to climate change, such as Bonaire. A number of adaptation goals were also introduced by the 2023 United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience, most of which require completion by 2030.
The Court was critical of the State for failing to:
- Implement a climate adaptation plan for Bonaire, despite knowing of the island's particular vulnerability
- Conduct adequate scientific research on the consequences of climate change for the residents of Bonaire
- Fund the second phase of the adaptation-related nature policy in Bonaire that has been in place for the Caribbean since 2020 (the NMBP 2020-2030)
The Court concluded that, although the State has failed to fulfil its duty of care to implement adaptation measures in Bonaire to date, it was still possible for it to fulfil this duty in the future. Noting the State's submissions that it should for governments not courts to decide the implementation of adaptation policy, the Court emphasised the State remained obligated to guarantee the fundamental rights of Bonaire residents.
Unequal treatment of Bonaire residents
Article 14 of the Convention provides protection from discrimination, requiring demonstration of a difference in treatment. If that demonstration is successful, a state must in turn show that it is objectively and reasonably justified. Article 1 of the Twelfth Protocol to the Convention (Article 1 P12) also establishes a general, free-standing prohibition of discrimination.
The State argued that Bonaire and the mainland European Netherlands did not need to be treated equally in terms of climate adaptation because of the geographical, climatic and geological differences. In the State's view, there had been no unequal treatment.
The Court disagreed. The State had taken mitigation and adaptation measures for Bonaire residents much later and less systematically than for mainland residents. Bonaire was more susceptible to climate change, also lacking adequate resources and expertise. These circumstances had created an "even greater urgency" for the State to create and implement an adaptation policy for Bonaire compared to mainland European Netherlands.
The State had failed to justify this difference in treatment and failed to prove that the difference served a legitimate purpose or that any difference in the speed of introducing adaptation measures was reasonable and proportional. Therefore, the State was in breach of Article 14 and Article 1 P12.
Where next?
This judgment highlights the pace of climate litigation driving the incorporation of global climate expectations into enforceable domestic judgments, primarily driven by legal instruments such as the Paris Agreement and the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion. States, especially European signatories to the Convention, need to consider their mitigation and adaptation policies in relation to island territories outside their mainland or primary borders. By the same token, there is now a clear path for island nations to force the hand of states not complying with international climate treaties, targets or obligations.
Corporates should be acutely aware that decisions compelling more robust climate action on the part of states are likely to have the knock on effect of prompting those countries to establish effective regulations and frameworks governing corporate conduct. This will consequently require engagement from businesses. The ICJ made clear in its Advisory Opinion that states may be held responsible for the conduct of private actors within their jurisdiction, including corporates and their GHG emissions.
In the meantime, corporates should ensure that their published targets or policies can realistically be achieved and include intermediate targets. As the Court emphasised, merely expressing ambitions to reduce GHG emissions is not enough.
As highlighted in our interactive climate change map, there are further key ongoing actions in the Netherlands against Shell and ING which, if successful, will radically alter the risk landscape for corporates in climate-related litigation.
A translated copy of the Greenpeace v Netherlands judgment can be accessed here.
