0° Initiative’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

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

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

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

🌍 "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

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

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

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

🌍💥 The ongoing climate case at the UN International Court of Justice highlights the challenges small island nations face in the face of the environmental crisis. A vital fight for climate justice and the protection of our planet 🌿🔥🌊 #ClimateJustice #ClimateChange #COP26