Dear Sir,
The recent judgement by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) relating to a climate change case, lodged by a group of elderly Swiss ladies, poses a significant and enduring risk to the court’s reputation and survival. This detail was highlighted in the news article, ‘Weak government climate policies ‘violate fundamental human rights’, European Court of Human Rights rules’ published on April 9th. The litigants made the point that the Swiss government’s insufficiently robust response to climate change was a transgression of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This judgment appears to be a far cry from the fundamental ideologies that motivated the original architects of the ECHR, who aimed to secure basic human rights and fairness for all European citizens.
The crucial role the convention and court played in unmasking the wrongdoings of the British authorities against the so-called “hooded men” during incarceration, not to mention its significant involvement in the Belfast Agreement, demonstrates its importance as an institution. The knowledge that judicial overreach could potentially cause irrevocable harm to such an institution is a cause for concern.
The court’s ruling has sparked discussions of potential withdrawal from the ECHR in Switzerland and Britain. Critics suggest the court may be sowing the seeds for its own demise. Its actions only serve to fortify critics who oppose the ECHR’s original objectives.
Major decisions like a country’s plan of action against climate change should be left to democratically elected governments. The ECHR needs protection and, undoubtedly, the current decision in the Swiss case proves counterproductive. I trust that our government will acknowledge this fact.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Ray Bassett,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.