Francisco Cordeiro de Araújo’s Post

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that effective protection from climate change is an actionable right for every signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights. Effectively, this may open up legal pathways for EU citizens to sue their state in case of insufficient climate policies. There are two contradictory main objections against this ruling. One is that courts are not democratically legitimized and therefore should not dictate state-led climate policies. The other is that climate change is a global challenge and therefore any single state cannot be legally responsible to address it. However, any existing global institution that (hypothetically) could coordinate such action (hello UN) is not - and likely never will be - more democratically legitimized than a court. In absence of viable alternatives and considering the failing self-commitment of states for effective climate policy, this critique thus falls flat. While voluntary climate action is always preferrable, new legal instruments for enforcement are, with regard to the challenges ahead, a necessity. #zerodegrees https://lnkd.in/eF2Fk48n

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that effective protection from climate change is an actionable right for every signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights. Effectively, this may open up legal pathways for EU citizens to sue their state in case of insufficient climate policies. There are two contradictory main objections against this ruling. One is that courts are not democratically legitimized and therefore should not dictate state-led climate policies. The other is that climate change is a global challenge and therefore any single state cannot be legally responsible to address it. However, any existing global institution that (hypothetically) could coordinate such action (hello UN) is not - and likely never will be - more democratically legitimized than a court. In absence of viable alternatives and considering the failing self-commitment of states for effective climate policy, this critique thus falls flat. While voluntary climate action is always preferrable, new legal instruments for enforcement are, with regard to the challenges ahead, a necessity. #zerodegrees

Yesterday, on November 26, 2024, authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports met with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to help the Court understand the IPCC's key scientific findings on the impact and future risks of climate change, along with options for adaptation and mitigation (see: https://lnkd.in/g2GTS7ZX). Oral hearings at the ICJ’s advisory proceedings to clarify obligations of States in respect of climate change will take place in December 2024 (see: https://lnkd.in/gSRFw_Sn). Earlier, in March 2023, the UN General Assembly had adopted a resolution (see: https://lnkd.in/gy5zFwRs) that was supported by more than 100 countries where the UNGA requested the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the following questions: 1. What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure climate and environmental protection from GHG emissions for present and future generations? 2. What are the legal consequences under a State's obligations where, by acts and omissions, it has caused significant harm to the climate and the environment, including with respect to: a) (other) States, including small island developing States, which are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change b) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change. Although not legally binding, the ICJ's advisory opinion is expected to clarify the rights and obligations of States, providing a clear legal benchmark under international law in respect of climate change. https://lnkd.in/gHaJT_CQ

🌍 "Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life". This is the headline conclusion from the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. The case was brought by Swiss claimants who alleged that their government had not done enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) had been breached. The judgment is highly significant, and is likely to influence litigation against both governments and companies. Although related cases against France (Carême) and Portugal and 32 other states (Duarte Agostinho) failed on admissibility and jurisdiction grounds, it is the Swiss judgment which will be most closely scrutinized in the weeks and months ahead. We will be considering further the implications of this judgment for climate litigation in Europe. https://lnkd.in/egK2d28T

The United Nations (UN) is hearing its landmark case from 2 to 13 December 2024 in the Hague, Netherlands. The historic hearing will determine whether high-emitting countries are legally responsible for addressing climate change and their obligations to those reeling from its impacts. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), commonly called the World Court, will hear statements from 98 countries. This marks the most significant participation the ICJ has ever seen. The ICJ will deliver an advisory opinion on states’ responsibilities regarding climate change. #climatechange #climatefinance #climateresilience #climaterisk https://lnkd.in/grcnRCp5

Earlier this week, the European Court of Human Rights handed down decisions for three highly anticipated climate cases. In both the Portuguese children's case (Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others) and the case of Carême v. France, the court has declared the applicants' claims inadmissible on grounds related to extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Court. This means the court will not rule on the applicants' substantive claims regarding the impacts of governments' climate inaction on their human rights. In the third 'Swiss grandmas' case (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland), the Grand Chamber of the ECHR has delivered a judgment finding a violation of the right to respect for private and family life. A majority of the judges (notably 16 to 1) held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. This represents the first time an international court has found that a state's failure to take adequate action on climate change can give rise to a violation of human rights. This case has the potential to influence the outcomes of climate litigation in other European countries, as well as other international bodies, in their decisions about the legal ramifications of inadequate climate policies. The case also represents a leap forward in the climate justice movement. Find the press releases here: https://lnkd.in/dbgVFnB2 #climatelitigation #ECHR #justice #judiciary

The ongoing climate change hearings at the International Court of Justice mark a historic step in holding nations accountable for their environmental impact. With 97 States and 11 international organizations participating, these proceedings are shaping the future of climate action. Key questions include whether States are legally obligated to protect the climate system for future generations and the consequences of harming vulnerable regions like small island States. Vanuatu, for example, called for this advisory opinion due to the existential threat of rising sea levels and coastal erosion from climate change. While not binding, the advisory opinion carries significant moral authority and could influence future climate negotiations and lawsuits. This is a crucial moment for shaping how we prioritize protecting vulnerable populations and ecosystems as a global community. At IFAW, we see this as a vital step toward ensuring both people and wildlife thrive in the face of climate challenges. #ClimateJustice #Sustainability #GlobalAccountability

The brilliant Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & the Environment is hosting a public lecture on the evening of 24 April: “The Climate Change Act at 15: UK Climate Action at a Crossroads”. The event will provide an opportunity to reflect on the role that the Climate Change Act has played in driving climate policy in the UK since it was first passed in 2008. And will be asking what the Act might mean in the face of decreased ambition in relation to climate policy measures announced by the Prime Minister in September of last year. The Act is being tested in the UK Courts. There are already more than 60 legal cases filed in the UK that mention it, including the challenges to the Government's net zero plans brought by Good Law Project together with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth. There is no doubt that these cases are having an impact on decision-making on climate change across the UK - with great opportunities for climate litigation to make a major and positive difference going forward. See you there? https://lnkd.in/eBXxpdNS Catherine Higham Joana Setzer

During the first week of landmark climate change hearings at the International Court of Justice, countries on the frontlines of the climate emergency pleaded for legal accountability and justice, while major-emitting states downplayed or outright dismissed their own responsibility for contributing to the global climate problem. The United States - the world's largest historical GHG emitter - rejected legal responsibility for its historical (and ongoing) emissions and argued that voluntary contributions under the Paris Agreement are the only viable solution. While the Paris Agreement requires state parties to submit emissions reduction pledges, or “NDCs” (nationally determined contributions), states are not obligated to actually fulfill them, the US said. Ralph Regenvanu, special envoy for climate change and environment for the Republic of Vanuatu, the small Pacific Island nation that spearheaded the initiative to seek an advisory opinion on climate from the ICJ, said he was “very disappointed” by the US statement to the court. Other climate justice advocates condemned the US position, calling it "morally bankrupt and deeply harmful," a "betrayal to the world’s youth", and "disrespectful to the millions whose lives and livelihoods are on the line." The US statement pointing to the Paris Agreement as the “best hope” for addressing climate change ironically comes as President-elect Donald Trump has said he intends to once again pull the US out of the global accord (and may even try to exit the UNFCCC altogether). “As sea levels rise and the impacts of climate change intensify, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand," Regenvanu said. “Climate change is an existential threat that transcends borders, affecting all nations regardless of political ideology or geographic location." More here, including what impact the court's opinion might have on global climate governance and litigation. #climatejustice #ParisAgreement #climatelitigation #climateemergency #ICJAO https://lnkd.in/e56_TsPm

Interesting decision by the European Court of Human Rights! 1. Right to respect for private and family life (European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8) encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. 2. Access to court. Legally established association with purpose to defend the human rights against the threats arising from climate change had the right to act on behalf of those individuals who could arguably claim to be subject to specific threats or adverse effects of climate change. Court stated that there is a need to promote intergenerational burden-sharing. Those on whose behalf the case has been brought do not have to meet the victim-status requirements for individuals. 3. There had been critical gaps in the process putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework. Failure to quantify national greenhouse gases. Failure to meet past GHG emission targets. Government had not acted in time and in appropriate way to devise, develop and implement relevant legislation and measures. 4. National courts had not provided convincing reasons as to why they had considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of complaints. They had failed to take into consideration the compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and had not taken the complaints seriously. All in all quite important decision! #climatechange #carbonneutrality #greentransition #ruleoflaw #science #scientificevidence #accesstojustice #echr