UnEarth Magazine.

_{Writing by Jana Merz – Art by Cori Birkin}

In its 75-year long history, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has heard cases that have widened disability rights, enforced vaccination mandates, and supported access to abortion. However, it was only in March 2023 that the international human rights court first heard a climate litigation case, reframing the way we view the climate crisis: Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland.  

The Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz (Swiss Association of Senior Women for the Climate) is a new face of the climate movement. They are a unique demographic in an effort that has become characterised by young people fighting to avoid a bleak future of soaring temperatures, collapsing biodiversity, and unpredictable weather. While the likes of Greta Thunberg and Xiye Bastida have defined climate advocacy in the present day, this association includes more than 2500 Swiss women over the age of 64 who belong to a generation that have “done so much to destroy the climate” but will probably not see the worst effects of it. Yet, it is their legal case against the Swiss government that is changing precedent for the acknowledgement of climate change within human rights law.  

The Klimaseniorinnen claimed that Switzerland’s weak climate policy failed to address and mitigate climate change, violating their fundamental right to health and wellbeing. On the 9^th of April 2024, the highest court of human rights in Europe decided that they were right. The court found that Switzerland had failed their citizens by not implementing a framework to regulate emissions nor reaching emission reduction targets. 

 Now, a year on, the response to the decision has been divided, and the actual impact of the landmark case is, unfortunately, disappointing.  

The decision of the court was welcomed by those who have long argued that climate change is intrinsically linked to human rights. Those most affected by our changing environment are already the most disadvantaged in our society: impoverished people, marginalised communities, and women. Climate change has been described as the biggest threat to human health of the 21^st century. It has been linked to increased weather-related deaths, due to more periods of extreme heat or cold, increased respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and poorer mental health due to more frequent natural disasters, higher levels of pollution, and general anxiety about environmental degradation. People who already face poverty, illness, and discrimination are more likely to face deteriorating physical and mental health, with the effects of climate change affecting us disproportionately along the cracks that have long existed in society.  

However, others believe that the court overstepped in their decision and that climate policy should be left to national institutions to determine. Tim Eike KC, the British representative to the ECtHR, disagreed with the ruling, accusing it of going well beyond the permissible interpretation that is afforded to the ECtHR. This sentiment was echoed in the Swiss press, across the political spectrum. One headline declared “We don’t want climate justice”, alluding to a 2021 referendum in which Swiss voters rejected changes to the CO2 act which would have implemented financial incentives, new technologies, and investments to reduce carbon emissions. Another branded the ruling as absurd, claiming that environmental lobbies were using the court to avoid democratic debate around climate policy.  

The execution of the ruling lies with the Council of Europe’s committee of ministers (CDMH) who are tasked with ensuring that Switzerland aligns its climate policy with a maximum global warming of 1.5°C. Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland marks the first time that an intergovernmental body has been required to monitor a state’s climate action, which has raised fears that the ruling is undermining the democracy of Switzerland by meddling in national decision making.  

The Swiss government submitted an action report which the CDMH found has managed to take some legislative steps towards a sufficiently ambitious climate policy, such as revising the previously mentioned CO2 act and setting climate goals for 2030. However, Switzerland is yet to fully align their climate policy with the complete requisites of the ruling. A carbon budget must still be calculated, and national gas emission limitations must still be outlined. This action report in general has been described to demonstrate a lack of political will to prevent harm and has caused concern because it sets a dangerous precedent that states can disregard their obligations to international human rights.  

One year on from the ruling, Switzerland is yet to prove that they are adequately protecting their citizens from the harms of climate change. So far, Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland has not yet been successful in its goal to promote effective climate protection. However, the association’s case is a milestone in climate litigation. It has transcended the borders of Switzerland, creating a legal basis for breaches of human rights due to climate change which are enforceable in all 46 member states of the ECtHR. Although, this is not without cost. Anger at the “intrusion” of the court has led some to question the legitimacy of the court. Close to home, former British Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption has called for the UK to consider withdrawing from the court, a decision that would seriously harm the protection of human rights in the UK and in Europe.  

Despite its controversy and its lack of complete success so far, Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland has made its mark on the world and given us hope for the road ahead. It has, for the first time, made states accountable for the standard and the implementation of their climate policy. It has publicly and legally established that we all have the right to a healthy environment.