EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEMANDS CLIMATE ACTION TO PROTECT CITIZENS

04/15/2024

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights made a significant ruling, holding countries must do more to protect their citizens from the effects of climate change (AP, Reuters). While rejecting similar cases for procedural reasons, the decision in favor of a group of elderly Swiss women establishes a legal precedent across the Council of Europe's Member States (AP, Reuters). The ruling marks the first international court decision on climate change, affirming governments have a duty to safeguard their citizens from climate-related harm (AP). The plaintiffs argued Switzerland's failure to address climate change violated their rights, particularly as older individuals are more vulnerable to extreme heat. While the court did not mandate specific actions, it emphasized the duty of governments to address climate change through democratic processes (AP, Reuters).

Despite its reputation for natural beauty, Switzerland has been criticized for prioritizing business interests, including those of fossil fuel and mining corporations (Reuters). The ruling, which cannot be appealed, has sparked calls for stricter climate targets, especially in the financial sector. Switzerland's political system, characterized by frequent referendums and a consensus-driven approach, presents challenges for swift reform (Reuters). Environmentalists hope the ruling will prompt discussion and action at both the national and cantonal levels, but the process is expected to be slow due to the country's cautious approach (Reuters).

Former Ireland President and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson praised the decision as precedent-setting. Robinson stated that "many countries in Europe, if not all, will be vulnerable to litigation along those lines, that their countries are not doing enough to protect the human rights. If countries do not protect their people, then they may be undermining human rights. That’s completely climate justice" (AP). This decision reflects a growing trend of using legal avenues to compel governments to take more robust action against climate change.