Summary:
This is the first time that the International Court of Justice has ruled on climate change, and the first to affirm the obligation of States to protect their populations from the effects of climate change. The ruling will affect climate action and climate litigation across Europe and beyond.
撰文 | Yinyin
Edit | Tang
→This is the 1026th original article of Global Zero Carbon
At a time when global temperatures have broken the record for the hottest for the same period in history for 10 consecutive months, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling in the climate lawsuit has sent a chill to the planet, which has just experienced the hottest March on record.
On April 9, local time, the European Supreme Court of Human Rights issued a landmark judgment, the court ruled for the first time that the Swiss civil society organization sued the Swiss government for inaction on climate change, and ruled that the Swiss government violated the European Convention on Human Rights and did not defend the "right to life" of Swiss citizens. This is the first time that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against a country's government.
The European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe, which is composed of 46 member states, the Council of Europe was established in 1949, much earlier than the European Union, and its member states include Serbia, Armenia and other countries in addition to the 27 countries of the European Union.
Although on the same day, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed two other similar cases on procedural grounds – one against the government on charges of inaction by young Portuguese and the other by a French mayor aimed at forcing the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But despite this, the Swiss case sets a legal precedent for the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, according to which future proceedings will be decided.
Corina Heri, an expert on climate change litigation at the University of Zurich, said: "This is a turning point. Despite the success of activists in domestic litigation, this is the first time the International Court of Justice has ruled on climate change and the first to affirm States' obligations to protect their populations from the impacts of climate change, Herry said.
She said it would open the door to more legal challenges for European Commission member states, including the 27 EU countries and many others from the UK to Turkey.
Caption: Climate Older Age activists from Switzerland celebrate the verdict as they leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
来源：EPA，Shutterstock
01
The ruling is a precedent
Suing the Swiss government for climate inaction is a group of 2,500 Swiss women with an average age of 73 who started an organization called KlimaSeniorinnen (Elderly Women's Association for Climate Protection). The association's indictment denounces "the failure of the Swiss authorities to mitigate the effects of climate change", which is already having a negative impact on people's living conditions and health.
The litigants, who have been involved in the litigation for nearly a decade with Greenpeace and a team of lawyers, noted that research has shown that older women are particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses. Four of the women said they suffered from heart and respiratory diseases and were at risk of dying on hot days. Many others in the group who live all over Switzerland say they suffer from fatigue, dizziness and other symptoms due to the heat.
On April 9, the European Court of Human Rights voted 16 in favor and one against to rule that the Swiss government had violated the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it had also unanimously ruled that the Swiss government had violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the "right to a fair trial".
In line with its climate pledges, Switzerland has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. But between 2013 and 2020, Switzerland's emissions levels fell by only about 11 percent, the ruling said. In addition, the judges unanimously found that Switzerland "has serious deficiencies in the process of establishing the relevant domestic regulatory framework".
The court stated that "Swiss authorities have failed to quantify national greenhouse gas emission limits through carbon budgets or other means". The ruling also said that the Swiss government failed to protect the rights of its citizens by failing to act "in a timely, appropriate and consistent manner".
Caption: KlimaSeniorinnen participants are interviewed after the decision of the European Court of Human Rights
Source: Reuters
So, what's next? First, the Swiss government must pay 80,000 euros for KlimaSeniorinnen's eight years of justice, and second, Switzerland must draw up a concrete plan to reduce carbon emissions beyond 2024, which is the same plan that all other European Commission member states that may face similar accusations must implement.
The Swiss government argues that human rights law does not apply to climate change and that tackling climate change should be a political process. But the Swiss Federal Office of Justice, which represents Switzerland at the European Court of Justice, said in a statement on Tuesday that Swiss authorities would analyze the verdict and review the measures that need to be taken in the country.
The Court stated that, given the complexity of the issues involved, the Swiss Government was in the best position to decide how to proceed. The committee, composed of representatives of the Governments of the States members of the Court, will monitor the measures taken by Switzerland in response to the ruling.
The expert noted that this was a limitation of the ruling. "The European Court of Human Rights did not order the Swiss government to take any specific action, but stressed that the Swiss government's remedies 'necessarily depend on democratic decision-making' to enact the laws necessary to implement such remedies," said Richard Lazarus, a professor at Harvard Law School. ”
02
The results are significant
Climate activists are concerned about the ruling. Climate activists, including Sweden's environmental teenage Greta Thunberg, gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday morning to await the verdict.
Thunberg said this was "just the beginning of climate litigation". "Around the world, more and more people are taking governments to court and holding them accountable for their actions," she said in courtroom after attending the ruling. ”
Caption: After the court ruling, Swedish environmental teen Thunberg talks to KlimaSeniorinnen members
Source: Reuters
Cordelia Bahr, a lawyer at the Swiss Association for Climate Protection of Older Women, said the court's decision "establishes climate protection as a human right". "This is a huge victory for us and a legal precedent for all countries in the Council of Europe," she said. ”
Joy Chowdhury, a lawyer at the Centre for International Environmental Law, said the ruling was "historic". "We expect this ruling to affect climate action and climate litigation across Europe and beyond," she said, adding that "there is no doubt that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and States have a human rights obligation to take urgent and effective action...... to prevent further damage and harm to people and the environment. ”
Ahead of the ruling, Gerry Liston of the NGO Global Legal Action Network said a victory in any of the three cases could constitute "the most significant legal development on climate change in Europe since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015".
"Most importantly, the court said in the Swiss Women case that the government must further cut emissions in order to protect human rights," said Sofia Oliveira, 19, one of the plaintiffs in the Portuguese case. "Their victory is also our victory, and a victory for all!"
Caption: People demonstrate outside the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, eastern France
Source: Associated Press
Ruth Delbaere, a legal expert at Avaaz, a U.S.-based nonprofit that advocates for climate activism, said the verdict would "serve as a blueprint for how to successfully sue her own government for climate change." The European Court of Human Rights' decision to shift this definition means that nearly 70 governments, representing nearly 500 million people, will now have to respond to new-age lawsuits in which climate-affected communities accuse them of inaction.
In the coming months, other international bodies are expected to issue their own rulings on equally thorny legal issues, which could further cement the evolving trend. Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru and South Korea are considering human rights-based climate cases. India's Supreme Court ruled in a ruling last month that citizens have the right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change.
"All these cases will clarify States' legal obligations to protect their rights in the context of climate change and will lay the groundwork for decades to come," Chowdhury said. ”
Source: Global Zero Carbon