Our Thinking

Testing the boundaries of state responsibility for climate harms

10 February 2026 / WORDS BY Sarah Barker

On 28 January, the Hague District Court found that the State of the Netherlands had acted in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (specifically, the rights to culture (Art 8) and freedom from discrimination (Art 12)) by failing to sufficiently protect the inhabitants of Dutch-Caribbean special municipality of Bonaire from the consequences of climate change.

The violation arose from both failures in mitigation and adaptation by the State – including its conduct in:

  •  pursuing a climate policy that does not make an equitable contribution to global measures to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels; and
  • failing to take timely and appropriate measures to protect the inhabitants of Bonaire from the effects of climate change, failing to adequately inform them about the consequences, and to involve them in adaptation decision-making.

The Court ordered that the State:

  •  incorporate absolute emission reduction targets for the entire economy into national legislation, consistent with Article 4(1) of the Paris Agreement. This must include intermediate targets and pathways for the reduction of carbon emissions up to 2050, and insight into the (remaining) emission allowance for the Netherlands; and
  • draft and implement (by 2030) a national adaptation plan that includes Bonaire.

The case represents another significant addition to the body of ‘State responsibility’ climate law – which notably includes the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in July 2025.

While the ICJ’s decision has yet to be tested under Australian law, both that advisory opinion and the more recent Bonaire case may be raised in the forthcoming Pabai Pabai v Commonwealth hearing in the Full Federal Court (an appeal against a July 2025 ruling by Justice Wigney that the Australian Government does not have a legal duty of care to protect Torres Strait people from climate harms).

In the interim, strategic litigants are likely to continue to look to leverage the ICJ’s opinion to pressure national governments to accelerate plans for decarbonisation of their economies, and resilience-building projects.

This article offers just a glimpse into our thinking on this issue. We provide a range of tailored Insights services to support our clients. For more information or to discuss how we can support you, please reach out Pollination Law Managing Director Sarah Barker, or Head of Knowledge & Insights Kate Hilder, to discuss.

share

Pollination in the news

READ News

Stay informed

CONNECT WITH US

Please provide your details below to access the report

    By clicking submit, you agree to our Terms & Conditions.