of the implementation. The court described climate change as “a defining challenge of our time” and stated that its impacts called for the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens, particularly vulnerable persons. 35 United States of America 40. In a 2016 interim decision in an American climate change lawsuit brought by a group of youth, Federal District Court judge Aiken rejected the government’s preliminary motion to dismiss the case, writing “I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”36 Plaintiffs assert that a stable climate system is a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of many rights, including the right to life. Ireland 41. The High Court of Ireland in Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. Fingal County Council recognized an unenumerated constitutional human right to a healthy environment.37 The Court agreed that the scientific evidence, including the IPCC’s 2014 report, “can in truth leave no doubt but that climate change poses a real and immediate risk to” citizens.38 Colombia 42. In Colombia in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 25 young people, who had filed a lawsuit to protect their constitutional rights to life, food, water, and a healthy environment. The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the government to honor its commitment to address climate change, with a particular focus on stopping the country’s worsening deforestation.39 The court gave the Colombian government four months to develop an effective plan to halt deforestation in the Amazon river basin. Netherlands 43. In the Netherlands, the Urgenda Foundation and 886 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government for allegedly failing to take adequate measures to address climate change. In 2015, the Hague District Court stated that because “there is a high risk of dangerous climate change with severe and life-threatening consequences for man and the environment, the State has the obligation to protect its citizens from it by taking appropriate and effective measures.”40 The Court found that the government’s pledge to reduce emissions 17% by 2020 was insufficient to meet the State’s fair contribution toward the UN goal of limiting global temperature increases to no more than two degrees Celsius. As a result, the court ordered the Dutch state to limit GHG emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.41 35 Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 25501/2015, Decision of 4 September 2015, available at: http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-casedocuments/2015/20150404_2015-W.P.-No.-25501201_decision-1.pdf, paras 6-7. 36 Juliana v. United States, (2016), Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, US District Court, District of Oregon, 10 Nov., 2016, p. 32. 37 Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. Fingal County Council, 2017 No.344 JR, Judgement of 21 November 2017, para 264. 38 Ibid, para 244. 39 Demanda Generaciones Futuras v. Minambiente, 11001 22 03 000 2018 00319 00, Decision of 5 April 2018. 40 Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396, Decision of 24 June 2015 (English translation), available at: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196, para 4.74. 41 Ibid, para 5.1. 10