Date: 2024
Type: Article
Mixed signals for domestic climate law : the climate rulings of the European Court of Human Rights
Verfassungsdebate, 2024, The transformation of European climate litigation, OnlineOnly
ABEL, Patrick, Mixed signals for domestic climate law : the climate rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, Verfassungsdebate, 2024, The transformation of European climate litigation, OnlineOnly
- https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77265
Retrieved from Cadmus, EUI Research Repository
The climate rulings of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are landmark decisions. However, it is not obvious what they mean precisely for the State parties of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Have we witnessed, in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a landslide victory for the activists that will revolutionize domestic climate law? Or do the two other decisions in which the Grand Chamber dismissed the applications preponderate? Milanović has rightly pointed out that the judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz is “very sophisticated.” All three rulings contain passages that forcefully advocate climate action and a prominent role of the ECHR therein. Other paragraphs defend the sovereignty of states and the margin of appreciation for democratic decision-making. Overall, the rulings send mixed signals. This is not unusual for Grand Chamber rulings that were reached almost unanimously. They reflect a compromise among the judges. In this blog post, I will unpack the consequences of the three rulings for the domestic climate policies of the ECHR parties.
Additional information:
Published online: 17 April 2024; This article belongs to the debate 'The transformation of European climate litigation'. In a transformative moment for European and global climate litigation, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled for the first time in its history that inadequate climate mitigation measures violate human rights. The implications are far-reaching, both in Europe and beyond. This joint blog debate with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law assesses the Court’s climate judgments from April 9 and discusses the implications for climate protection and climate litigation.
Cadmus permanent link: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77265
Full-text via DOI: 10.59704/ed119b8b22292328
ISSN: 2366-7044
Publisher: Verfassungsblog
Succeeding version: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77264
Files associated with this item
- Name:
- Verf_Mixed_signals_2024.pdf
- Size:
- 134.3Kb
- Format:
- Description:
- Full-text in Open Access, Published ...