Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Sanita van Wyk x
Clear All Modify Search
Author:

Globally, climate change litigation is growing and court decisions delivered in the Global North, as opposed to the Global South, have gained international attention. Among these prominent court decisions, the Dutch decision in the Urgenda case is heralded as the first decision in the world where a government was held responsible by its citizens to prevent dangerous climate change based on inter alia human rights grounds. But what about climate change court decisions on the other side of the globe, in South Africa specifically, such as the cases of Earthlife Africa and Deadly Air? What is the relevance of these judgments to systemic climate change litigation? What do these cases tell us about the current South African approach to rights-based climate change litigation? Can these South African judgments also be heralded as preventing and mitigating dangerous climate change in the same vein as the Urgenda decision? Is it possible to say that the Dutch and South African approach to climate change litigation indicates two different roads to the same destination of human-rights based climate change litigation? Answers to these questions and others make up this contribution to the discussion on the development of climate change litigation across the two contrasting jurisdictions of the Netherlands and South Africa.

Open access