The European Court of Human Rights recently declared that protection from the effects of climate change is a human right under European law, in a landmark ruling directed at Switzerland. The ruling was hailed as a monumental victory by climate activists, as it found that Switzerland had failed to meet its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, violating the plaintiffs’ right to respect for private and family life. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5° C by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the enforcement of these obligations remains largely untested.
In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. While non-binding, this opinion will influence how future climate-related litigation is interpreted and guide legislative development. The ECtHR ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland highlighted the potential for enforcing the Paris Agreement through the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically referencing rights to life, a fair trial, and respect for private and family life.
Although the ECtHR ruling was a significant win for climate change activists, its impact was constrained by its limited scope. While Switzerland was found in violation of the convention, the penalty imposed was minimal, consisting of the payment of legal costs and expenses. Moreover, the ruling did not mandate specific actions by the Swiss government, leaving the enforcement of the decision to the leaders of the Council of Europe. The Swiss government is now facing pressure to comply with the ruling by submitting an implementation plan in October, despite recent parliamentary votes rejecting the ECtHR decision.
The rejection of the ECtHR ruling by the Swiss Parliament underscores the challenges faced by international courts and treaties in enforcing climate change commitments. Countries have the flexibility to withdraw from treaties or reject court opinions that they perceive as burdensome, highlighting the limitations of international law compared to nationally legislated laws. The potential consequences of countries refusing to comply with international climate change agreements could weaken the legal framework established by the Paris Agreement and other international treaties.
The Swiss government’s response to the ECtHR ruling remains uncertain, with possibilities including compliance, rejection, or withdrawal from relevant treaties. The outcome will have implications for the effectiveness and authority of international courts, particularly in cases related to climate change. The fragility of the Paris Agreement and the discretionary nature of international law enforcement are exemplified by Switzerland’s deliberations. The decisions made by Switzerland could set a precedent for how other countries respond to international court rulings and treaty obligations in the context of climate change.
The outcome of this situation with Switzerland may serve as an early indicator of how countries will navigate their commitments under international climate change agreements. The potential ramifications of countries disregarding legal obligations related to climate change could undermine the effectiveness of global efforts to combat environmental challenges. Ultimately, the response of Switzerland to the ECtHR ruling highlights the delicate balance between international legal frameworks, national sovereignty, and the imperative to address climate change on a global scale.
