Open Access
The European Court of Human Rights' April 9 climate rulings and the future (thereof)
Loading...
Files
Verf_European_court_2024.pdf (146.81 KB)
Full-text in Open Access, Published version
License
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
2366-7044
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Verfassungsdebate, 2024, The transformation of European climate litigation, OnlineOnly
Cite
BRUCHER, Anaïs, DE SPIEGELEIR, Antoine, The European Court of Human Rights’ April 9 climate rulings and the future (thereof), Verfassungsdebate, 2024, The transformation of European climate litigation, OnlineOnly - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77266
Abstract
Across Europe, activists of all ages have taken to the streets to pressure their governments to take effective action against climate change. As domestic decision-makers failed them, they knocked at Strasbourg’s door. Three generations of right-holders turned to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): senior women, young citizens, and a middle-aged ex-mayor. They complained about the past and current effects of climate change on their enjoyment of human rights, as well as the expected worsening of the climate crisis and its future effects on their rights. Expectations were high. Not only would the ECtHR deal with the nexus between climate change and human rights in the here and now but also for the future, including the thorny question of “intergenerational equity,” i.e., the duties owed today to individuals too young to have a voice, or even not-yet-born. Did the ECtHR live up to these expectations? The answer is bittersweet. Some room was definitely given to future generations and intergenerational equity considerations—almost as a common thread through the cases (especially in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and, more incidentally, in Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States). At the same time, the April 9 rulings seem to have been heavily influenced by the ECtHR’s concern for preserving its own future and its refusal to become some sort of great global climate change court. While foreseeable, this compromise may have disappointed a few future generations aficionados. In this blog post, we briefly touch on the bitter and the sweet.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 29 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.
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.