Sabrina Lehnen Stoll
Translation: Ligia Payão Chizolini
Climate litigation has emerged as a powerful mechanism of direct democracy, enabling citizens and organizations to hold states and corporations accountable for their failures in mitigating climate change. This approach, by directly linking popular demands to decision-making spheres, becomes a vital tool for protecting human rights in a context of global environmental crisis.
The rise of climate litigation as a mechanism of direct democracy reflects growing dissatisfaction within civil society over the insufficient responses of governments and companies to climate change. As the environmental crisis intensifies, citizens and organizations actively seek new ways to influence public policies and ensure compliance with environmental obligations. This grassroots movement, by utilizing the judiciary to enforce accountability, transcends the limitations of traditional representative democracy, where economic and political interests often overshadow urgent environmental protection needs.
In this context, climate litigation serves as a direct channel for public participation in environmental governance. By bringing cases to court, citizens not only demand accountability from states and corporations but also reaffirm their right to protection against the adverse impacts of climate change, which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities. This movement is driven by a broader understanding that climate justice is inseparable from social justice and human rights, recognizing that actions or inactions in the climate field have direct repercussions on people's lives, particularly marginalized populations.
Moreover, climate litigation strengthens civic engagement by providing a platform where voices often silenced in traditional political discourse can be heard. Through this process, groups and individuals can influence public policies, pushing for changes that align state and corporate actions with international climate commitments and fundamental human rights principles. This phenomenon also highlights a transformation in how environmental responsibilities are understood, where collective action through the courts can compel a reassessment of government and corporate practices.
In summary, climate litigation, as an expression of direct democracy, not only holds involved actors accountable but also redefines the relationship between the state, the environment, and citizens. By ensuring that environmental obligations are treated as human rights issues, this mechanism promotes more inclusive and responsible governance, essential to addressing the challenges posed by the global climate crisis.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), often referred to as “the conscience of Europe,” recently delivered an unprecedented ruling by finding Switzerland in breach of its duties to combat climate change. This decision marks the first time the European Court has condemned a state for failing to take adequate measures against climate change, establishing an inseparable link between human rights protection and environmental obligations. According to Setzer, “the judgment constitutes a crucial landmark for courts worldwide in interpreting the human rights obligations of countries concerning climate action” (Setzer, cited in Climate Case, 2024).
This ruling is considered unprecedented because it was the first time the ECHR condemned a state for not taking sufficient measures to combat climate change. In this case, Switzerland was found guilty of failing to fulfill its climate obligations, which has direct implications for human rights protection. The court recognized that climate change poses a severe threat to human rights, including the right to life, health, and protection from environmental harm.
By condemning Switzerland, the court established an indissoluble link between human rights protection and environmental obligations. This means that, to guarantee human rights, states must also take effective measures to combat climate change. The decision is significant because it redefines state responsibility regarding environmental issues, treating them not merely as matters of domestic policy but as obligations tied to universal human rights.
Joana Setzer, a researcher at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, emphasized the importance of this decision by stating that it constitutes "a crucial landmark for courts worldwide." According to Setzer, this ruling could influence how other courts, both in Europe and elsewhere, interpret states' obligations regarding climate action. In other words, the ECHR's decision not only sets a precedent in environmental and climate law in Europe but could also serve as a reference for future cases globally, strengthening the connection between human rights and environmental protection in courts worldwide.
The impact of this decision extends beyond Switzerland, affecting all 46 member states of the Council of Europe, with potential global repercussions. The European Court itself noted in its ruling that the case set “a precedent with significant implications” (ECHR, 2024). According to Joana Setzer from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, “the historic decision by the ECHR not only sets a precedent in environmental and climate legislation but also highlights a radical shift in the global legal landscape related to climate change” (Setzer, 2024).
This landmark ruling also paves the way for organizations to bring new cases on behalf of individuals or groups affected by climate change. Anja Grada, a member of the Climate Strike movement, highlighted the importance of this decision by stating: “for the first time, an international court recognizes that human rights include the right to climate protection. It is clear that Switzerland’s climate policy violates the most fundamental human rights” (Grada, 2024).
Additionally, this decision reinforces the idea that legal action can be a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. As noted by the WWF, “the victory of the Swiss elderly is a victory for all generations” (WWF, 2024), demonstrating the intergenerational reach and lasting impact that climate litigation can have. In this sense, the role of NGOs and social movements in promoting climate justice has been crucial, as these entities not only represent the voices of those directly affected but also mobilize society around the climate issue.
Including the right to climate protection within the scope of human rights reflects a significant advancement in understanding state obligations toward the environment. As Savaresi and Auz (2023) point out, “climate litigation has the potential to transform the relationship between states and their citizens by forcing governments to adopt more ambitious and effective mitigation and adaptation policies.”
In a broader context, climate litigation can be seen as a manifestation of direct democracy, enabling citizens to participate actively in public policy formulation and implementation. By turning to the courts, people exert direct control over state actions, ensuring compliance with environmental obligations. This is particularly relevant in a global scenario where climate change poses an existential threat and where government responses have often been inadequate.
Finally, the ECHR's decision also underscores the need for a more integrated and coordinated approach to climate governance, where human rights and environmental protection are viewed as interdependent components of the same agenda. The evolving jurisprudence around climate litigation suggests that we are witnessing a transformation in how human rights can and should be protected in a world increasingly impacted by climate change.
This paradigm shift, as argued by Kotzé (2022), “imposes an obligation on states to reassess their environmental and climate policies, ensuring they are aligned not only with international commitments but also with the expectations and rights of their citizens.” Therefore, climate litigation not only strengthens direct democracy but also redefines the role of courts as guardians of human rights in the face of the climate emergency.
This new perspective highlights the need for climate governance that integrates environmental justice with social justice, recognizing the interdependence between human rights and environmental protection. By promoting accountability for states and corporations through the courts, climate litigation not only ensures that environmental policies meet global commitments but also guarantees that citizens' voices are heard and respected. Thus, courts emerge as crucial actors in building a legal order that reflects the urgent demands of a society seeking sustainability and equity, reaffirming the role of direct democracy as an essential means to address the challenges of the global climate crisis.
REFERENCES
Climate Case. European Court of Human Rights ruling on Switzerland’s climate obligations. Climate Case, 2024.
ECHR. European Court of Human Rights: Judgement on Climate Change Obligations. European Court of Human Rights, 2024.
Grada, Anja. The Significance of the ECHR Decision on Climate Protection as a Human Right. Climate Strike, 2024.
Kotzé, Louis J. "Transformative Environmental Constitutionalism and Climate Change Litigation". Revista de Direito Ambiental, v. 22, n. 2, p. 45-67, 2022.
Savaresi, Annalisa; Auz, Julien. Human Rights and Climate Change Litigation: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Environmental Law, v. 35, n. 1, p. 1-20, 2023.
Setzer, Joana. The Impact of the ECHR Ruling on Global Climate Litigation. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, 2024.
WWF. Switzerland Climate Case: A Victory for All Generations. World Wildlife Fund, 2024.
Comments