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
25 April 2024
The Paris Effect
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland is a striking example of the Paris effect: the influence of the non-binding collective goals of the Paris Agreement (PA) on the interpretation of domestic constitutional law or international human rights law in climate litigation. The Court’s decision proves to be an essential element in triggering the necessary democratic debates on which the PA relies “from the bottom up”. Reinforcing the procedural limb of Art. 8 ECHR will be an essential step towards further strengthening democratic decision-making in the societal transition to climate neutrality. Continue reading >>
0
25 April 2024
India’s New Constitutional Climate Right
The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgement on climate change and human rights in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others (hereinafter “M.K. Ranjitsinh”) on March 21, 2024. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, formulated a new constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change by drawing upon Article 21 (the fundamental right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (the fundamental right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. The final judgement is a remarkable development for the evolution of constitutional climate litigation in India Continue reading >>
0
22 April 2024
The First Italian Climate Judgement and the Separation of Powers
On 26th February 2024, in its Giudizio Universale decision, the Tribunal of Rome penned the first Italian climate judgement. Shortly after, on 9 April 2024, the ECtHR handed down its seminal trio of KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and Others and Carême v. France. In this monumental string of cases, the ECtHR set the new standard for climate litigation in Europe, also regarding separation of powers. This invites a critical assessment of Giudizio Universale’s stance. Continue reading >>19 April 2024
Gemischte Signale für das nationale Klimarecht
Die Klima-Entscheidungen der Großen Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) sind wegweisend. Auf den ersten Blick ist jedoch nicht vollkommen klar, wie sie sich auf das nationale Klimarecht der Vertragsstaaten der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) auswirken werden. Haben die strategischen Klimaklagen den von ihnen erwünschten Durchbruch erzielt, der das nationale Klimarecht revolutionieren wird? Continue reading >>
0
19 April 2024
The European Court of Human Rights’ Kick Into Touch
On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on three applications concerning the fight against climate change and the positive obligations of the signatory states of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in this respect. This blog post analyzes the Carême decision in which the Court declared inadmissible an application brought by a former mayor of a French town on the grounds of incompatibility ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (§ 88). In my view, this is an ill-developed decision, which could dangerously imply a regression in environmental matters. Continue reading >>
0
18 April 2024
Menschenrecht auf Klimaschutz als „lebensrettende Behandlung“?
Manuela Niehaus verteidigt die menschenrechtsgestützte Klimarechtsprechung – insbesondere des EGMR – gegen meine Kritik. Es handele sich nicht um „Globuli für Umweltjuristen“, sondern um ein potentiell lebensrettendes Medikament, das – im Zusammenspiel mit anderen Mitteln – einen wesentlichen Beitrag zum Klimaschutz leisten könne. Das sehen sicher viele ähnlich und darum bin ich dankbar für Niehaus Argumente und für ihren sanften Spott. Ihr Spott trifft mich zu Recht, ihre Argumente aber überzeugen mich nur sehr teilweise. Continue reading >>
0