Tom Cummins’ Post

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 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

All eyes on The Hague 👀 ICJ advisory opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change ⚖️ The oral hearings take place until the 13th of December. It is a perfect opportunity to see the different visions between States, but specially that a lot of States shout out loud that they stand for climate action, but in a court room they try to escape any responsibility or legally binding instruments. International Law is a structure of norms and should not be seen as poem that you read with a mic to create an appearance of eloquence. ICJ can have an important role in the future of climate litigation between states and proper qualify/ quantify their obligations. In my opinion, our focus should not be in North vs South artificial narratives, but in defining clearly the share of responsibility and which emissions accountability should be relevant, not total per State, not per capita, but embedded emissions, as a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights briefly underlined (KlimaSeniorinnen). Somes changes should be made to the UNFCCC. Unless we truly understand the real meaning of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC), it is difficult to achieve a global and fair solution. One of the biggest critics that some States make about a rules based international order is the double standards of its use. Courts, that understand their role, can contribute with impartial decisions for a just and efficient world. https://lnkd.in/dh6BntXG

🌍 European Court of Human Rights  - Landmark Climate Rulings Approaching! April 9, 2024, is set to be a major moment for climate litigation as the European Court of Human Rights prepares to release its rulings on three landmark climate cases. These cases are not just about legalities; they represent a pivotal juncture for climate accountability and justice. The cases include: -               Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland -               Carême v. France -               Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 other States It is expected that the rulings will set a precedent, shaping the future of climate-related litigation not only in Europe but globally. In essence, these cases raise critical questions about States' obligations in the face of climate change, including: -               The duty of States to implement climate mitigation and adaptation policies to prevent foreseeable human rights harms. -               Determining who can claim protection and seek remedies under the European Convention of Human Rights. -               Addressing extra-territorial harms caused by activities under a State's jurisdiction. -               Incorporating the Paris Agreement and climate science into the interpretation of human rights obligations. The importance of this moment in international climate litigation isn't just about the legal technicalities but rather safeguarding our Planet and its inhabitants, present, and especially the future. One crucial aspect highlighted in these cases is the impact of climate change on children's rights. In ‘Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 others’ children and youth are standing up, claiming that the forest fires in Portugal, exacerbated by global warming, directly threaten their health and well-being. They cite disrupted sleep patterns, allergies, respiratory problems, and anxiety as just some of the consequences they endure and are demanding that States fulfill their obligations under international conventions, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. #ClimateLitigation #HumanRights #ChildrensRights #ClimateChangeAwareness 🌱🌏 https://lnkd.in/dw-5ZQJi

This is epochal: the european court of human rights rules against Switzerland and in favour of the Klimaseniorinnen: Switzerland does not sufficiently adress climate change: „The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change. There had been critical gaps in the process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations. Switzerland had also failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets. While recognising that national authorities enjoy wide discretion in relation to implementation of legislation and measures, the Court held, on the basis of the material before it, that the Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise, develop and implement relevant legislation and measures in this case.“ https://lnkd.in/ddnv8NeJ

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

The European Court of Human Rights is about to deliver rulings on two landmark climate justice cases. These decisions could be a game-changer for how countries address climate change and protect human rights. It's no coincidence that the plaintiffs in these landmark cases represent groups most severely affected by climate change - women and youth. In "Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland," a group of Swiss women argue their government's inaction threatens their health, particularly during heatwaves. They believe this inaction violates their human rights. The second case, "Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others," is particularly groundbreaking. Six young Portuguese citizens are suing a record-breaking 33 European countries! They claim these nations' failure to cut emissions fast enough jeopardizes their present and future health, violating their human rights. Rising temperatures already limit their ability to play outdoors and even impact their sleep. Experts warn of even more extreme weather events if emissions aren't curbed. Save the Children has played a significant role in this historic youth case through a legal intervention. The rulings are expected on April 9th. This is a critical moment for climate justice in Europe, with global implications.

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

Last week's ICJ hearings on the responsibility of states for climate change drew a fairly clear line in the sand between the developed historic emitting countries (who argue that they are not accountable under international law for the impacts of climate change) and those countries that are least responsible and bearing the brunt of the climate crisis (calling for accountability and reparations from high emitting states). Whatever the ICJ decides, the fight for climate justice is intensifying and African States are among those leading the charge and taking a firmer stance. https://lnkd.in/darxeCJ8