Between Heat and Hope

Lawyering before the European Court of Human RightsIn this episode of Between Heat and Hope, Veronika Fikfak, professor of Human Rights and International Law at UCL, joins us to discuss the ‘European Human Rights Bar’, this is the network of lawyers that bring cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Having just completed an ERC Starting Grant and being about to start an ERC Consolidated Grant, Veronika has done extensive empirical work – both qualitative and quantitative – on the ECtHR. In this episode, she shares her great expertise on lawyering before the ECtHR and links it for us to current and future climate cases before the Strasbourg Court. We discuss opportunities and limits of bringing a climate case to the ECtHR, reflect on the consequences of the particularities of climate litigation in light of Veronika's research findings on the European Human Rights Bar in general, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the separation but also cooperation between domestic lawyers and their ECHR counterparts.ReferencesKlimaSeniorinnenVeronika FikfakRecommendationsRobert Macfarlane, Is a River Alive? (W. W. Norton & Company, 2025).Monica Feria-Tinta, A Barrister for the Earth: Ten Cases of Hope for Our Future (Faber, 2025).AboutEditing: Clara KammeringerMusic: “Delayed Flight” by Michael Ramir C. via mixkitRecorded at the University of Amsterdam, February 2026The LitDem ProjectThis project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n° 101087994).

The Legal Strategy behind Greenpeace The Netherlands v Netherlands (Bonaire case)In this third episode, Eefje de Kroon, Greenpeace The Netherlands’ Campaign Lead for Climate and Energy, speaks with Tessa Trapp, PhD Researcher at the University of Amsterdam, about the Bonaire Climate Case (Greenpeace The Netherlands v The Netherlands). The conversation begins with a brief overview of the Dutch court’s judgment pronounced on January 28, 2026, and the mitigation, adaptation, and non-discrimination obligations for the Dutch government. Eefje then expands on Greenpeace's advocacy and legal strategy relating to Bonaire, including on the special history, culture, and traditions, as well as particular vulnerability of the island. She also talks about the close relationship and collaboration with residents of Bonaire and people with a personal connection to Bonaire, who played a central role not just in planning the case, but also in its success, despite not being granted individual legal standing. To conclude, Eefje and Tessa look to the future and discuss potential follow-ups, as well as political and judicial consequences of the judgment.ReferencesBonaire Case (Dutch with links to the English translation)Youtube Playlist: ‘De Toekoemst van Bonaire’, by Greenpeace NetherlandsRecommendationWords to Win By (Podcast)AboutEditing: Simon Waswa & Clara KammeringerMusic: “Delayed Flight” by Michael Ramir C. via mixkitRecorded at the University of Amsterdam, January 2026The LitDem ProjectThis project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n° 101087994).

Greenpeace The Netherlands v Netherlands (Bonaire case)In this second episode of Between Heat and Hope, Phillip Paiement, Professor of Law & Governance in the Anthropocene at Tilburg Law School, discusses the Bonaire case of 28 January 2026 with Christina Eckes, professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam. The conversations covers the adaptation and mitigation aspects of the judgment.In relation to adaptation, it draws out the particular situation of the residents of Bonaire as compared to the resident of the State of the Netherlands, reflects on the missed opportunity to engage more with the colonial history of the claims in this case, and concludes that the case may serve as basis for future litigation by plaintiffs from the Caribbean Netherlands, including not only the special municipalities like Bonaire but potentially also the autonomous constituent countries. More broadly, it offers a basis for equality claims grounded in geographical vulnerability.Concerning mitigation, the discussion covers the judgment’s grounding in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment (2024), the relative absence of the Advisory Opinion (AO) of International Court of Justice on States’ Obligations in Respect to Climate Change (2025), and the District Court’s engagement with fair share. It comes to the conclusion that the Bonaire case applies the budget logic of KlimaSeniorinnen and the ICJ’s AO but could have more clearly developed its express requirement that the State of the Netherlands quantifies its emission allowances as part of the global emission budget that keeps global warming below 1.5°C.ReferencesBonaire Case (Dutch with links to the English translation)KlimaSeniorinnenICJ AO on climate changeUrgendaTransLitigate, Phillip Paiement PI (ERC Starting Grant 2021)RecommendationsKatherina Pistor, The Law of Capitalism and How to Transform It (Yale University Press, 2025).John Vaillant, Fire Weather (Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, 2023).AboutEditing: Clara KammeringerMusic: “Delayed Flight” by Michael Ramir C. via mixkitRecorded at the University of Amsterdam, January 2026The LitDem ProjectThis project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n° 101087994).

10 Years of Climate LitigationIn this first episode of Between Heat and Hope, Simon Waswa, PhD researcher at the University of Amsterdam is joined by Dennis van Berkel, Legal Counsel of the Urgenda Foundation and Strategic Advisor at the Climate Litigation Network (CLN). The conversation begins by taking stock of CLN’s 10-year anniversary since the landmark Urgenda decision. This decision marked the first time a court ordered the State to do its part in the fight against climate change. The discussion then delves into the legal architecture that has been cumulatively built from the bottom up through the different climate cases from Urgenda to KlimaSeniorinnen to the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion (ICJ AO) on climate change.The conversation closes with reflections on the future of climate litigation and the democratic legitimacy of courts as they continue to hold States and corporate actors to account amid political backlash and an accelerating climate crisis.ReferencesCLN “Ten Years Climate Litigation” reportUrgendaKlimaSeniorinnenICJ AO on climate changeAndre et al. (2025) – 89% study (see also here)RecommendationsOutrage + Optimism (Podcast)The Ezra Klein Show (Podcast)AboutEditing: Clara KammeringerMusic: “Delayed Flight” by Michael Ramir C. via mixkitRecorded at the University of Amsterdam, January 2026The LitDem ProjectThis project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n° 101087994).