[ad_1]
Nevertheless, the positive verdict against Klima Seniorinnen is touted by legal experts as extremely significant. In this case, the court rejected claims from individuals within the group, but accepted claims from the group itself as an organization. This distinction could affect how people group together and approach European courts in similar cases in the future, it said. helicopter.
She added that the court could have ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not actually require action on climate change. If that were to happen, it could undermine existing rulings from European domestic courts that have required governments to adopt tougher climate policies. For example, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled last year that Belgium must reduce emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.
Today’s judgment comes after several years of active climate change-related litigation in courts around the world. In the United States, for example, in 2023 a judge ruled that the state of Montana had violated the right to a “clean and healthy environment” of 16 young people.
Mr Higham said the ECHR’s judgment was “likely to have implications around the world”. She points out that around 100 similar lawsuits are underway in various courts around the world, also challenging governments over climate change mitigation efforts. Mr. Heri agreed, pointing out that the ECHR is considered a highly influential international court worldwide.
Jorge Vinuales, an expert in law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge, said that despite the fact that Switzerland has relatively good climate policy, Switzerland has been found to be in breach of human rights law. He said it was worth noting. But he criticizes the European Commission’s decision not to recognize a case brought by a young Portuguese man. Part of the court’s reasoning was that their case covered not just Portugal, but all EU member states and five other countries. “The courts seem to mistakenly believe that the climate system is ubiquitous and that it is important to effectively control the sources of harm,” Vinuales said.
The big question about climate change-related litigation is its impact. In fact, is climate change powerful enough to induce countries and large corporations to cut emissions sooner than planned? Higham says there is evidence that this is already happening. In the Netherlands, the Supreme Court ordered the government to reduce emissions by 15 megatons in 2020, and emissions have since fallen significantly. “We are actually seeing policy changes in the Netherlands that appear to have been influenced by that decision,” Higham said.
The ECHR’s ruling could also reignite bitter litigation in some countries under the ECHR’s jurisdiction, such as the UK. This is “hugely important,” said Tim Crosland, director of Plan B, a legal group that challenged the UK government over climate policy but ultimately lost in 2021. “The Strasbourg precedent supports your position that fundamental rights are being violated,” Crosland said. “Well, I do now.”
Defendants in future lawsuits may feel that their emissions account for only a small portion of climate change, and therefore it is unfair to prioritize one state over many others. But Crosland says the ECHR’s ruling does not overstate the individual obligations of states. Each state has a share of the world’s carbon budget to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, for example.
“Obviously, Switzerland is not responsible for emissions from the United States or China, but it is responsible for its own emissions. That’s what the judgment says,” he explains.
[ad_2]
Source link
