[ad_1]
LONDON: Does government inaction on climate change violate human rights?
That is the question the European Court of Human Rights addressed in Strasbourg, France, as it ruled on three separate climate cases as part of a growing trend of communities bringing climate lawsuits against governments.
The verdicts set a precedent for future litigation on how rising temperatures affect people’s right to a liveable planet.
WHAT ARE THE LAWSUITS?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday ruled in favour of a group of elderly Swiss women who said their government’s inadequate efforts to combat climate change put them at risk of dying during heatwaves.
However, the court threw out two other similar cases.
In the first, six Portuguese young people sued 32 European countries for allegedly failing to avert catastrophic climate change that they say threatened their right to life.
The case, described by experts as “David v. Goliath”, did not seek financial compensation, but for governments to drastically cut emissions.
In the final case, Damien Carême, a former mayor of the French commune of Grande-Synthe, challenged France’s refusal to take more ambitious climate measures.
WHAT RIGHTS ARE AT RISK?
The court action marked the first time the European Court ruled on whether climate change policies, if too weak, can be in breach of human rights enshrined in the European Convention.
The Swiss women said Bern violated their right to life by failing to cut emissions in line with a pathway that limits global warming to 1.5C (2.7F) to fend off the most severe consequences of temperature change.
Their case cited a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that found that women and older adults were among those at highest risk of temperature-related deaths during heatwaves.
The Portuguese case centred on the impact for young people who face the prospect of a planet that is increasingly unliveable.
It argued the right to life was threatened by climate change-driven events such as wildfires, and that government failure to act particularly discriminated against young people.
The French case, meanwhile, sought an assessment of whether insufficient government action can amount to a violation of the right to life, by exposing people’s homes to climate risk.
“We all are trying to achieve the same goal,” said 23-year-old Catarina Mota, one of the Portuguese campaigners. “A win in any one of the three cases will be a win for everyone.”
WHAT CAN A RULING AGAINST GOVERNMENT ACHIEVE?
The ruling against the Swiss government sends a clear message that it has a legal duty to increase its efforts to combat climate change in order to protect human rights,” said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network.
Switzerland needed to set, and adhere to, its own carbon budget and implement emissions reduction targets, she said. “That’s a pretty clear list of things that the Swiss government needs to do. Everyone will be watching.”
If Switzerland does not update its targets, further litigation could be carried out at the national level and courts could issue financial penalties.
HOW WILL THE RULINGS SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT?
A regional human rights court has never before ruled on climate cases.
“We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond. The ruling reinforces the vital role of courts – both international and domestic – in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm,” Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law, said.
“While today we did not see ideal outcomes in all the three cases, overall today is a watershed legal moment for climate justice and human rights.”
All three cases were decided by the court’s top bench – known as the Grand Chamber – where only cases that raise serious questions about interpretation of international human rights law are sent.
The cases’ outcomes therefore serve as a blueprint for the Strasbourg court and national courts considering similar cases.
The decision against Switzerland is likely to embolden more communities to bring similar cases against governments.
Six other climate cases have been put on hold by the Strasbourg court pending Tuesday’s three rulings, Chowdhury said.
These include a lawsuit against the Norwegian government that alleges it violated human rights by issuing new licences for oil and gas exploration in the Barents Sea beyond 2035.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru and South Korea are also considering human rights-based climate cases.
That is the question the European Court of Human Rights addressed in Strasbourg, France, as it ruled on three separate climate cases as part of a growing trend of communities bringing climate lawsuits against governments.
The verdicts set a precedent for future litigation on how rising temperatures affect people’s right to a liveable planet.
WHAT ARE THE LAWSUITS?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday ruled in favour of a group of elderly Swiss women who said their government’s inadequate efforts to combat climate change put them at risk of dying during heatwaves.
However, the court threw out two other similar cases.
In the first, six Portuguese young people sued 32 European countries for allegedly failing to avert catastrophic climate change that they say threatened their right to life.
The case, described by experts as “David v. Goliath”, did not seek financial compensation, but for governments to drastically cut emissions.
In the final case, Damien Carême, a former mayor of the French commune of Grande-Synthe, challenged France’s refusal to take more ambitious climate measures.
WHAT RIGHTS ARE AT RISK?
The court action marked the first time the European Court ruled on whether climate change policies, if too weak, can be in breach of human rights enshrined in the European Convention.
The Swiss women said Bern violated their right to life by failing to cut emissions in line with a pathway that limits global warming to 1.5C (2.7F) to fend off the most severe consequences of temperature change.
Their case cited a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that found that women and older adults were among those at highest risk of temperature-related deaths during heatwaves.
The Portuguese case centred on the impact for young people who face the prospect of a planet that is increasingly unliveable.
It argued the right to life was threatened by climate change-driven events such as wildfires, and that government failure to act particularly discriminated against young people.
The French case, meanwhile, sought an assessment of whether insufficient government action can amount to a violation of the right to life, by exposing people’s homes to climate risk.
“We all are trying to achieve the same goal,” said 23-year-old Catarina Mota, one of the Portuguese campaigners. “A win in any one of the three cases will be a win for everyone.”
WHAT CAN A RULING AGAINST GOVERNMENT ACHIEVE?
The ruling against the Swiss government sends a clear message that it has a legal duty to increase its efforts to combat climate change in order to protect human rights,” said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network.
Switzerland needed to set, and adhere to, its own carbon budget and implement emissions reduction targets, she said. “That’s a pretty clear list of things that the Swiss government needs to do. Everyone will be watching.”
If Switzerland does not update its targets, further litigation could be carried out at the national level and courts could issue financial penalties.
HOW WILL THE RULINGS SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT?
A regional human rights court has never before ruled on climate cases.
“We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond. The ruling reinforces the vital role of courts – both international and domestic – in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm,” Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law, said.
“While today we did not see ideal outcomes in all the three cases, overall today is a watershed legal moment for climate justice and human rights.”
All three cases were decided by the court’s top bench – known as the Grand Chamber – where only cases that raise serious questions about interpretation of international human rights law are sent.
The cases’ outcomes therefore serve as a blueprint for the Strasbourg court and national courts considering similar cases.
The decision against Switzerland is likely to embolden more communities to bring similar cases against governments.
Six other climate cases have been put on hold by the Strasbourg court pending Tuesday’s three rulings, Chowdhury said.
These include a lawsuit against the Norwegian government that alleges it violated human rights by issuing new licences for oil and gas exploration in the Barents Sea beyond 2035.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru and South Korea are also considering human rights-based climate cases.
[ad_2]
Source link