The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of more than 2,000 Swiss women last week, affirming their argument that the Swiss government violated their human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change.
Here are some takeaways from the verdict.
WEAK CLIMATE POLICIES CAN BREACH HUMAN RIGHTS
This is the first time a regional human rights court has ruled that countries can violate human rights by failing to reduce their climate-warming emissions fast enough.
The Court said it interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights language on a right to private and family life to encompass a right to effective protection by governments from climate change’s adverse impacts on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.
THE WIN WILL CHANGE CLIMATE CASE LAW IN EUROPE
The Court’s ruling against the Swiss government does not only matter for Switzerland, but for all 46 countries which are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. Any climate and human rights case brought before a judge in Europe’s national courts will now need to consider the top human rights court’s ruling in whatever decision they make.
THE CASE COULD IMPACT CLIMATE LITIGATION WORLDWIDE
While the outcome of the Swiss women’s case is not legally binding in jurisdictions outside Europe, experts expect international courts will consider the ruling in future judgments.
Three other international tribunals — the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — are also writing advisory opinions now on states’ obligations on climate change.
CLIMATE LITIGATION ISN’T GOING AWAY
Tuesday’s ruling could open the floodgates on citizens taking their governments to court on the grounds of human rights claims. Already, the number of climate-related court cases filed around the world has surged: In 2017 there were fewer than 1,000 cases filed globally. By the end of 2023, that number was up to more than 2,500.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEED WINNERS
Climate lawsuits argued on the grounds of human rights are still relatively novel, and not everyone emerges with a victory. While the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the Swiss women’s argument, it tossed out two other cases on procedural grounds – highlighting how success in climate cases can often depend on factors including jurisdiction or the claimants’ ability to establish themselves as suffering specific harms caused by the effects of climate change.
