22 May 2024
The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change
On May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a long-awaited Advisory Opinion on climate change and international law. This marks the first time that an international tribunal has issued an advisory opinion on State obligations regarding climate change mitigation. The Advisory Opinion addresses several key questions regarding application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the context of climate change. There is much to explore in terms of both the content of the ITLOS advisory opinion and its potential implications for global, regional, and local efforts to combat climate change. To facilitate discussion and the exchange of ideas, the Sabin Center's Climate Law Blog and Verfassungsblog are partnering on a blog symposium on the ITLOS opinion. In this first, introductory blog, we outline the background to the advisory opinion and highlight some of the key takeaways from it. Continue reading >>
0 
15 May 2024
What Does the European Court of Human Rights’ First Climate Change Decision Mean for Climate Policy?
On 9 April the European Court of Human Rights issued its first ever comprehensive decision in a climate litigation case. The ECtHR has set out clear directions for member states to follow to align their climate policies with human rights obligations. Domestic legislators across Europe must give these requirements serious consideration to ensure their climate laws not only meet these minimum standards but also effectively contribute to global climate goals. This is imperative for both environmental sustainability and the protection of fundamental human rights that climate change is affecting. Continue reading >>
0
10 May 2024
Reparation for Climate Change at the ECtHR
The recent rulings on climate change by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are—as others have pointed out in this blog symposium—both “historic and unprecedented” for various reasons, not least regarding the question of reparation for climate change-related harm. While redress is a pivotal question to think through in relation to climate change, it has, somewhat surprisingly, received less attention from scholars and has not yet been directly addressed by international courts and tribunals. In this regard, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland might be considered a missed opportunity on the part of the ECtHR. Continue reading >>
0
09 May 2024
KlimaSeniorinnen and Gender
This blog post discusses the relevance of the KlimaSeniorinnen case to the discussion of vulnerability and intersectional gender in climate litigation. To date, very few climate cases have addressed the gendered dimensions of climate change and there was some hope that this case would. However, as this post argues, despite the fact that KlimaSeniorinnen is a case about the impacts of climate change on elderly women, the Court fails to meaningfully engage with gender as a determinant of the harms suffered by individuals. Gender remains an overlooked issue in climate litigation.
Continue reading >>07 May 2024
The Genre-Bending of Climate Litigation in India
In a widely acclaimed judgment, India recently saw its first climate ruling issued by the Supreme Court. The Court derived the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change from Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution. The ruling of the Supreme Court has been classified in this blog as an important step in connecting human rights and climate change. In this blog post, I offer another overarching route that cases connected to climate change in India have taken, which is genre-bending in that they use environmental litigation as the pathway to also address climate change. Continue reading >>07 May 2024
KlimaSeniorinnen and the Question(s) of Causation
In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights makes many general statements about the nature of climate change and different actors’ roles in addressing it. Many points have been addressed in this blog symposium. In my blog post, I turn to a more technical aspect of the judgment, namely the question of causation. I will untangle the analytical gymnastics that the Court performs regarding this question. I will argue that the reasoning regarding causation is confusing and that it is not clear how specifically the ‘real prospect’ test is applied for finding a breach. Continue reading >>
0
03 May 2024
A Human Right to Climate Protection as “Life-Saving Treatment”?
Manuela Niehaus defends the human rights-based climate jurisprudence - especially of the ECtHR - against my criticism. It is not "Homeophatic Globules for Environmental Lawyers", but a potentially life-saving medicine that - in combination with other means - can make a significant contribution to climate protection. Continue reading >>
0
01 May 2024
International Trade and “Embedded Emissions” after KlimaSeniorinnen
A key and underrated aspect of the recent triad of climate rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is that the ECtHR has brought to the fore the role of trade-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in states’ carbon footprints. While most international climate agreements focus on the reduction of domestic GHG emissions, in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland Judgment (KlimaSeniorinnen), the ECtHR found ‘attributable’ to Switzerland the GHG emissions taking place abroad, ‘embedded’ into goods (and possibly services) ‘consumed’ in Switzerland. As I will argue, the ruling appears to require Switzerland to adopt a climate-oriented trade policy. Continue reading >>
29 April 2024
The European Court of Human Rights’ April 9 Climate Rulings and the Future (Thereof)
By recognizing the responsibility they have toward future individuals who will be standing in their shoes, current decision-makers are encouraged to adopt long-term perspectives and consider the broader implications of their actions beyond the immediate. This responsibility is echoed in numerous statements by the ECtHR in its rulings about how it understands its own role in European society and the world, and about the deference it believes it owes to domestic decision-makers on the one hand, and to its own past and future work on the other hand. In this light, the ECtHR has struck a pragmatic yet slightly cynical balance between the great demands it was faced with and the great responsibilities it owes to European citizens, to other institutions, and to itself. Continue reading >>26 April 2024
Who is afraid of actio popularis?
If, as the German experience suggests, the actio popularis exclusion serves to bar individuals from invoking objective illegality that does not concern rights, while standing of associations is a way to enforce objective legality despite the actio popularis exclusion, it is hard to see why this should have any relevance for the European Convention of Human Rights. Human rights are, after all, rights.
Continue reading >>
0