The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on Switzerland failing to combat climate change effectively, thus violating the human rights of its residents, will have significant implications across the European Union, most notably in Ireland.
The precedent-setting ruling comes from a case initiated by elderly Swiss women who argued that climate change-related heatwaves worsened their health conditions. However, two pertinent cases didn’t pass the admissibility test, one of them filed by six young Portuguese individuals, guided by Irish attorneys from the Global Legal Action Network. The group claimed that their youth made them susceptible to severe climate occurrences, a stance that could be endorsed if the case is reformatted and first presented to a local court.
The susceptibility of Ireland to similar lawsuits roots in the verifiable evidence showing shortcomings in the climate policies considering the significant threat looming over its citizens. It is also attributable to the inability in halting the country’s persistent high carbon emissions, despite the Irish Government’s grand plans and stringent carbon budgets.
The judgment necessitates states to use top-notch scientific evidence to address the crisis, emphasizing the crucial role local courts have in safeguarding children’s rights. In the fight for human rights, it concluded that the need is to consider the ever-evolving scientific evidence about the urgency of tackling climate change and confronting its harmful consequences, including the severe risk of their unavoidability and irreversibility. In essence, there has to be scientific, political, and judicial acknowledgment of a connection between the adverse impacts of climate change and human rights enjoyment.
Although the court can’t inflict penalties, its decrees can be employed in national-level cases to make governments answerable for their non-compliance. Consequently, it is anticipated to incite a new surge of climate lawsuits in European domestic courts.
The Irish Government may also face legal action due to its failure to legally acknowledge the right to “a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment”, despite indications it intends to do so. It co-endorsed a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council to incorporate the right into the Constitution.
Given the months of unprecedented global temperatures and growing worry about rapid warming and ensuing extreme weather incidents, nations don’t need a reminder of the pressing need for immediate action. However, this ruling is expected to shed light on what is deemed suitable action, and will likely lead to more citizens striving to hold governments legally and politically answerable for their recurring failures to take substantive action against climate change.