Landmark Climate Change Ruling by European Court of Human Rights
In a groundbreaking decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the Swiss government failed to adequately address climate change, violating the human rights of a group of senior women known as the KlimaSeniorinnen, or Senior Women for Climate Protection. The ruling, which legal experts are hailing as one of the most impactful on human rights and extreme weather, could have far-reaching implications for future climate change litigation worldwide.
Swiss Government’s Insufficient Climate Change Mitigation Efforts
The ECHR judges, in a 16-to-1 decision, found that Switzerland’s efforts to mitigate climate change were insufficient. The court cited the country’s lack of a robust regulatory framework and its failure to meet its 2020 emissions reduction target of 20% from 1990 levels, achieving only a 14% reduction. Human rights law researcher Corina Heri from the University of Zurich, who was present for the ruling, expressed her relief and happiness at the outcome.
“It’s really a landmark judgement that was issued today, and it’s going to shape how all future climate change judgements are decided.”
Implications for Future Climate Change Litigation
The ECHR’s decision is expected to have significant ramifications for climate change litigation around the world. Catherine Higham from the London School of Economics, who coordinates the Climate Change Laws of the World project, notes that there are approximately 100 similar cases challenging governments’ climate change mitigation efforts in various courts globally. The ruling could also reinvigorate cases that have struggled in nations under the ECHR’s jurisdiction, such as the UK.
Collective Action and the Right to a Clean Environment
The court’s acceptance of complaints made by the KlimaSeniorinnen as an organization, rather than individuals within the group, could influence how people approach European courts with similar cases in the future. Additionally, the ruling affirms that the European Convention on Human Rights requires climate action, which could support existing domestic court rulings demanding stronger climate policies from governments, such as the Brussels Court of Appeal’s decision requiring Belgium to cut emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030.
The ECHR’s decision comes amidst a growing trend of climate change litigation worldwide, with cases like the recent ruling in Montana, USA, where a judge found that the state was violating the right of 16 young people to a “clean and healthful environment.” As climate activist Greta Thunberg, who attended the ECHR ruling, stated, the world can expect more climate-change-related litigation in the future.
The Impact of Climate Change Litigation on Emissions Reduction
While some may question the impact of climate change litigation on countries’ and corporations’ efforts to reduce emissions, evidence suggests that these cases can lead to tangible policy changes. In the Netherlands, for example, the Supreme Court ordered the government to slash emissions by 15 megatonnes in 2020, resulting in a sharp drop in emissions.
As Tim Crosland, director of the legal group Plan B, points out, the ECHR ruling does not exaggerate nations’ individual duties but rather emphasizes each state’s responsibility for its own emissions and its share of the world’s carbon budget for keeping global warming below critical thresholds.
The landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights is set to shape the future of climate change litigation and underscores the growing recognition of the link between human rights and the urgent need to address the climate crisis.
3 Comments
So, failing the planet is now on par with violating human rights? Europe’s taking it up a notch.
Climate action lagging? Sounds like a rights issue on a whole new level!
Climate change indifference is the new human rights violation, huh? Bold move, Europe.