Saluting Swiss women
Dr Richard Dixon acclaims the Klimaseniorinnen on their victory in the European Court of Human Rights last week
The judgment last week by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that Switzerland’s lack of action on tackling climate change breached the human rights of a group of older women will open the door for many similar challenges and boost the chances of cases already underway.
A group called Klimaseniorinnen, representing 2,400 older Swiss women, made the case that they were more affected by the changing climate than other sections of society, including through a higher risk of death during heatwaves.
A key part of their case was that Switzerland’s plan should be based on science and aiming to make a fair global contribution to keeping this century’s temperature rise to below 1.5C, rather than the 2C many governments say they are aiming for.
The court agreed and has ruled that the Swiss government is breaching their human rights by not acting more quickly to reduce climate emissions. At the same time, a similar case brought by a group of young Portuguese people was rejected, but only because it had not been through the full legal process in Portugal before being submitted to the European court.
The ECHR – contrary to popular belief – has nothing to do with the European Union, so Brexit has not taken the UK out of its jurisdiction. This means both that the Swiss judgment sets a legal precedent that the UK needs to take notice of, and that similar cases could be taken against the UK to the court.
Of course, UK ministers responded to the judgment against Switzerland by immediately saying that the court should mind its own business.
There are currently thousands of legal cases around the world relating to climate change, but this case – both because it was heard in one of the world’s most important courts, and because it relates climate change directly to human rights – is extremely significant.
Already a group of charities has taken the UK Government to court over the inadequacy of its climate change plans.
The High Court ruled that UK ministers could not honestly say that they had plans to meet climate targets because those plans were so lacking in detail. The result was a flurry of 44 climate and energy documents, which at least partially fill in some of the missing details.
Action has also been taken against companies. A court in the Netherlands ruled in 2021 that oil company Shell needed to change its strategy in order to align with climate targets. Shell has appealed this ruling and recently went backwards on its already very-modest climate commitments.
In Scotland, there are proposals to bring more human rights into Scots law, including a right to a healthy environment. A long process with stakeholders, started by Nicola Sturgeon in 2017, should lead to a bill being introduced to the Scottish Parliament early next year.
At least in theory, having a human right to something is more powerful than a simple rule in law because of its overarching nature. A correctly specified right to a healthy environment could enable communities and individuals to challenge government decisions in ways that current environmental laws do not allow. As we have just seen in the outcome of last week’s case against the Swiss government.