Swiss women win landmark climate case at Europe top human rights court by Swissinfo, LSE, Reuters, agencies   9 Apr. 2024 (Reuters)   Europe's top human rights court ruled on Tuesday that the Swiss government had violated the human rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change, in a decision that will set a precedent for future climate lawsuits.   The European Court of Human Rights's ruling, in favour of the more than 2,000 Swiss women who brought the case, is expected to resonate in court decisions across Europe and beyond, and to embolden more communities to bring climate cases against governments.   But in a sign of the complexities of the growing wave of climate litigation, the court (ECtHR) rejected two other climate-related cases on procedural grounds. One of these was brought by a group of six Portuguese young people against 32 European governments and another by a former mayor of a low-lying French coastal town.   The Swiss women, known as KlimaSeniorinnen and aged over 64, said their government's climate inaction put them at risk of dying during heatwaves. They argued their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to such climate change impacts.   In her ruling, Court President Siofra O'Leary said the Swiss government had failed to comply with its own targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and had failed to set a national carbon budget.   "It is clear that future generations are likely to bear an increasingly severe burden of the consequences of present failures and omissions to combat climate change," O'Leary said.   One of KlimaSeniorinnen's leaders, Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti said she was struggling to grasp the full extent of the decision.   "We keep asking our lawyers, 'Is that right?'. And they tell us 'it's the most you could have had. The biggest victory possible'."   The Swiss Federal Office of Justice, which represented the Swiss government at the court, took note of the ruling.   "Together with the authorities concerned, we will now analyse the extensive judgment and review what measures Switzerland will take in the future," it said in a statement.   The cases before the 17-judge panel in Strasbourg, France, are among the increasing number of climate lawsuits brought by citizens against governments that hinge on human rights law.   The verdict in the Swiss case, which cannot be appealed, will have international ripple effects, most directly by establishing a binding legal precedent for all 46 countries that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.   It indicates Switzerland has a legal duty to take greater action on reducing emissions.   If Switzerland does not update its policies, further litigation could follow at the national level and courts could issue financial penalties, Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the non-profit Climate Litigation Network, said.   Switzerland has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, from 1990 levels. Bern had proposed stronger measures to deliver the goal, but voters rebuffed them in a 2021 referendum as too burdensome.   The verdict could also influence future rulings at the Strasbourg court, which had put six other climate cases on hold pending Tuesday's decisions.   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.   "It sets a crucial legally binding precedent serving as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures," Ruth Delbaere, legal campaigns director at global civic movement Avaaz, said of the Swiss case's outcome.   Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru and South Korea are considering human rights-based climate cases. India's supreme court held in a ruling last month that citizens have the right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change.   In the case brought by the Portuguese youngsters, the court ruled that while a state's greenhouse gas emissions may have an adverse impact on people living outside its borders, it did not justify prosecuting a case across multiple jurisdictions.   It also noted that the young people had not exhausted legal avenues within Portugal's national courts before coming to the ECtHR.   "I really hoped that we would win against all the countries," Sofia Oliveira, one of the Portuguese teens, said in a statement.   "But the most important thing is that the Court has said in the Swiss women’s case that governments must cut their emissions more to protect human rights. So, their win is a win for us too and a win for everyone."   Apr. 2024   European court rulings on climate inaction:   Joana Setzer, Associate Professor at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said:   “The significance of the victory in the Klimaseniorinnen case is monumental. The landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights not only sets a precedent in environmental and climate law but also signals a momentous shift in the global legal landscape concerning climate change.   “This decision underscores the profound importance of protecting individuals’ rights against the severe impacts of climate change, emphasizing the responsibility of states under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to safeguard private and family life against environmental harm.   “While the judgment directly influences European States bound by the Convention, its ramifications extend globally. It serves as a crucial reference point for courts worldwide in interpreting the human rights obligations of states regarding climate action.   “This ruling arrives at a critical juncture, poised to inform the advisory opinions of three international courts on the legal obligations of states in the context of climate change. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s vital role in climate governance.”   Catherine Higham, Policy Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said:   “The victory in the Klimaseniorinnen case represents a milestone in climate litigation. Had the Court not recognized the Convention’s mandate for states to actively protect citizens from the repercussions of climate change, it could have posed a substantial barrier to future litigation, representing a backwards step in terms of the evolution of climate law.   “Instead, we now have a clear affirmation that states bear a positive obligation to shield their citizens from climate change and to safeguard their welfare, including through establishing a binding regulatory framework at the national level. This ruling is pivotal for our comprehension of the effectiveness and execution of close to 30 climate change framework laws throughout Europe".   http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science/historic-verdict-could-link-climate-crisis-and-human-rights/75321434 http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-european-court-rulings-on-climate-inaction http://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-activists-seek-breakthrough-human-rights-court-ruling-against-european-2024-04-09/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/media-reaction-court-ruling-a-european-first-for-climate-litigation/ http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/oxfam-european-court-human-rights-provides-partial-step-forward-climate-protection http://www.savethechildren.net/news/duarte-agostinho-echr-case-disappointing-outcome-six-young-applicants-access-justice http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?11098366/ECHR-climate-change-Swiss-decision-WWF-response http://www.echr.coe.int/w/grand-chamber-rulings-in-the-climate-change-cases Visit the related web page
	People living in armed conflicts are suffering beyond what words can describe by Mirjana Spoljaric President, International Committee of the Red Cross   Feb. 2024   (Speech given by Mirjana Spoljaric, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, at the 55th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva).   As flagrant violations of international humanitarian law regularly occur, Mirjana Spoljaric underlines the relevance of the Geneva Conventions - setting clear limits to violence in war – and urgently calls upon States to make international humanitarian law their political priority, to respect principled humanitarian action and personnel and to preserve peace.   "People living in armed conflicts are suffering beyond what words can describe. They barely survive in the rubbles of their cities and in overcrowded camps. They die in hospitals under attack.   Women agonize giving birth because basic essential medicine and services are missing. Children grow up hungry and with constant fear. Persons with disabilities cannot flee because of inaccessible warnings, shelters, and evacuations.   Families struggle with the pain of not knowing the fate of their loved ones – missing, detained or held hostage.   The immense destruction and despair should not let us forget: Wars have rules. International human rights law and international humanitarian law share a common objective – to protect the lives and dignity of all human beings.   75 years ago, states voluntarily agreed to be bound by these laws. Their rules remain relevant and utterly clear. 75 years ago, states rallied around a humanitarian imperative to control the behavior of warring parties and a shared interest to set limits to violence in war.   Today, the Geneva Conventions are ratified by all States. They form the strongest international consensus.   However, challenges to the relevance and effectiveness of international humanitarian law are evident:   Violations regularly occur under the watch of the international community. Exceptions to its application are created. Reciprocity and transactional arguments are invoked to justify disrespect for the rules of war and basic values of humanity.   The continuous suffering in armed conflicts does not point to the ineffectiveness of international humanitarian law but to the non-compliance by warring parties and states that support them.   Besides the letter of the law, I must recall the fundamental values on which international humanitarian law was founded. First and foremost, humanity.   The Geneva Conventions were created to preserve a minimum of humanity in even the most difficult situations, to prevent the dehumanization of the other, and to help maintain a pathway back to peace.   Second and equally importantly, equality. Equality, as the fundamental notion of humanity, is everywhere we look in modern international law. Humanity and equality are enshrined in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the Geneva Conventions. All speak to the dignity, worth and equal rights of all individuals.   Irrelevant of the side of the frontline they find themselves in, the lives and dignity of every civilian is of equal worth.   Both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Human Rights Council work towards ensuring states uphold these fundamental values.   As President of the ICRC, I will seize every opportunity to urge you:   First – to make compliance with international humanitarian law your political priority. It is your collective responsibility to prevent and reduce the cost of war by implementing international humanitarian law and ensuring its respect around the world.   Protecting our shared humanity means not only upholding the letter of the Geneva Conventions but also its spirit.   Second – to protect and preserve neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian action and personnel. Respect our neutrality and enable our independence, as they are our best tools to access those in need and to influence the behaviors of those who hold power and weapons.   However, international humanitarian law alone will never ensure the safety and dignity of people. Principled humanitarian action alone will never be enough to alleviate all the suffering. They will not change what war intrinsically is: an assault on our common humanity.   Therefore, my third urgent call to you is to do your utmost to preserve peace, avoid the escalation of violence and ensure that conflict does not become the norm".   http://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-president-spoljaric-destruction-despair-should-not-let-us-forget-wars-have-limits Visit the related web page
	View more stories