“One of the biggest wins for rights on the defining issue of our times – the climate crisis. ”
“One of the biggest wins for rights on the defining issue of our times – the climate crisis. ”
Swiss women set a global legal precedent for challenging their nation’s climate efforts The court’s ruling in this case was groundbreaking, explicitly linking climate change action with human rights protections for the first time.
April 19, 2024
by Aoife Daly A group of 2,400 elderly Swiss women challenged their government’s “woefully inadequate” climate efforts, arguing that such negligence exposed them to a heightened risk of death during heatwaves.
Invoking their right to life, they demanded accelerated emission cuts to align with the global warming limit of 1.5°C set in the Paris climate agreement. The court’s ruling in this case was groundbreaking, explicitly linking climate change action with human rights protections for the first time. The ruling found that Switzerland’s inadequate climate measures violated the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the right to private and family life due to the serious adverse effects of climate change. This victory sets a precedent for future climate litigation, affirming that climate action is a legal duty of states under human rights law. This case was the first opportunity for the court to consider the duties of states in the context of climate change, and the first climate change case to be heard by an international human rights court. The decision will have a ripple effect across Europe and beyond, as it sets a binding precedent for how courts should deal with the rising tide of litigation in which it is argued that the climate crisis involves human rights violations. The court calls itself “the conscience of Europe” and its rulings apply in 46 member states, which includes all the EU, plus the UK and various other non-EU countries. Its ruling opens up all these states to similar cases in their own national courts – cases that these states are likely to lose. The court held that the European convention requires states to seek to be carbon neutral within three decades, and take adequate interim measures to achieve this. Switzerland was failing to do so. Those who took the case are the KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a group of 2,400 Swiss women over age 64, who argued that because older women are more likely to die in heatwaves Switzerland must take greater action to prevent the planet heating beyond the Paris agreement target of 1.5°C. Heatwaves, the KlimaSeniorinnen argued, have become hotter and more common because of fossil fuels. The court ruled that Swiss authorities had not acted in time to come up with an adequate strategy to cut emissions. This, the court found, constitutes a violation of Article 8, the right of these women to respect for their private and family life (encompassing health). It also found the applicants had not had appropriate access to justice in Switzerland, as the Swiss courts did not consider the merits of their case adequately. The judgment makes it clear that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and that states have human rights obligations in this regard. States must act urgently and effectively, and operate in accordance with the best available science to prevent further violations of human rights in the climate crisis. What happens next This ruling will influence climate action and climate litigation across the world. All states which are parties to the European convention on human rights have the same obligations as Switzerland. Like Switzerland, they will need to aim for carbon neutrality and be able to demonstrate they are taking measures to achieve this, otherwise they may be violating human rights. The ruling will directly affect other climate cases before the court. Norway, for instance, is being taken to court for issuing new oil and gas licences, while Austria has been taken to the court by a man with a temperature-dependent form of multiple sclerosis. Furthermore, the precedent will be followed by national courts. Cases against Belgium, Germany and Poland, for example, challenge inadequate measures to address climate change. The judgment also has ramifications beyond Europe, and will probably affect forthcoming litigation in other jurisdictions and at an international level, for example, at the International Court of Justice. It is likely therefore that we will see a lot more countries held to account for failing to do their part to stop climate change, and this may form a crucial part of the impetus that we need to stop the climate crisis. Content from The Conversation and Union of Concerned Scientists
|
We envision a world in which people treat each other with respect and kindness, where we consider the Earth to be our home to care for and to enjoy. And we see that this world is in the process of emerging.
Positive News is a reflection of this widespread movement and tells its powerful stories. Vertical Divider
|