Dutch Climate Ruling Signals Major Shift on Aviation and Emissions Accountability: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344

A recent decision by a Dutch court has delivered a landmark message in climate law, with far-reaching implications well beyond the Netherlands. In a case brought by Greenpeace Nederland against the Dutch State concerning the Caribbean island of Bonaire—part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands—the court issued a ruling that reshapes how national climate responsibility is understood.

While the judgment represents an important victory for the people of Bonaire, one of its most significant aspects lies in how it addresses sectors that have historically been excluded from national climate accounting—particularly aviation and maritime transport.

Aviation and shipping brought into the legal climate framework

In its judgment of 28 January 2026, the District Court of The Hague held that the Netherlands had failed to meet its positive obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court found that the State’s combined mitigation and adaptation measures for Bonaire fall short of the commitments it has made under the international climate regime.

A central criticism concerned the way national emissions are calculated. The court found that Dutch climate targets present a distorted picture because they do not fully include emissions from international aviation and maritime shipping, despite the Netherlands hosting globally significant infrastructure such as Schiphol Airport and the Port of Rotterdam. Excluding these sectors, the court reasoned, undermines transparency, weakens accountability, and misrepresents the country’s real climate footprint.

Legal foundation in international climate law

Crucially, the court grounded its reasoning in Article 3(3) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which requires climate policies to be:

• comprehensive in scope

• applicable to all economic sectors

• inclusive of all relevant sources of greenhouse gas emissions

By treating this provision as a substantive legal benchmark, the court effectively positioned aviation and maritime emissions as sectors that must be included in national climate strategies. This approach challenges the long-standing practice of treating these emissions as external to national responsibility under the Paris Agreement framework.

The judgment signals that states cannot rely on methodological or accounting gaps in international climate mechanisms to understate their real contribution to global emissions. In legal terms, the court suggests that foundational principles of the UNFCCC impose broader obligations than those typically reflected in national reporting structures.

Global implications

The reasoning adopted by the Dutch court has potential international significance. Many countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement similarly exclude or only partially account for aviation and maritime emissions in their national climate targets. The legal logic used in this case provides a framework that courts in other jurisdictions could adopt when assessing state responsibility for climate harm.

If this interpretation gains traction, it could mark a shift toward more comprehensive national climate accounting—one that reflects actual emissions impact rather than formal reporting categories—and fundamentally reshape how climate responsibility is defined under international and domestic law.

Thanks to Dutch colleague Frank Peters for bringing the case to the public attention.