Dr. Andrea Licata’s Post

🌍 European Court of Human Rights  - Landmark Climate Rulings Approaching! April 9, 2024, is set to be a major moment for climate litigation as the European Court of Human Rights prepares to release its rulings on three landmark climate cases. These cases are not just about legalities; they represent a pivotal juncture for climate accountability and justice. The cases include: -               Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland -               Carême v. France -               Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 other States It is expected that the rulings will set a precedent, shaping the future of climate-related litigation not only in Europe but globally. In essence, these cases raise critical questions about States' obligations in the face of climate change, including: -               The duty of States to implement climate mitigation and adaptation policies to prevent foreseeable human rights harms. -               Determining who can claim protection and seek remedies under the European Convention of Human Rights. -               Addressing extra-territorial harms caused by activities under a State's jurisdiction. -               Incorporating the Paris Agreement and climate science into the interpretation of human rights obligations. The importance of this moment in international climate litigation isn't just about the legal technicalities but rather safeguarding our Planet and its inhabitants, present, and especially the future. One crucial aspect highlighted in these cases is the impact of climate change on children's rights. In ‘Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 others’ children and youth are standing up, claiming that the forest fires in Portugal, exacerbated by global warming, directly threaten their health and well-being. They cite disrupted sleep patterns, allergies, respiratory problems, and anxiety as just some of the consequences they endure and are demanding that States fulfill their obligations under international conventions, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. #ClimateLitigation #HumanRights #ChildrensRights #ClimateChangeAwareness 🌱🌏 https://lnkd.in/dw-5ZQJi

📣 A must-read blog by Louise Fournier, Maria Alejandra Serra, and Safina Okumu on the power of the ITLOS climate change advisory opinion "The ITLOS Advisory Opinion highlights how crucial it is to prevent, reduce and control greenhouse gas emissions to safeguard our oceans and all the invaluable benefits they offer to the communities who depend on them.  The impacts of this decision extend well beyond the confines of the legal system, affecting the lives of billions of people who depend on the ocean for livelihoods, sustenance, and culture." #oceans #lawofthesea #climatechange #oceanjustice #climatejustice #climatelaw #internationallaw #parisagreement #marinepollution #greenpeace

Fifteen judges from around the world will seek to answer two questions: What are countries obliged to do under #internationallaw to protect the #climate and #environment from human-caused #greenhousegasemissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments where their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? #climatejustice #justtransition #SIDS The second question makes particular reference to “small island developing states” likely to be hardest hit by climate change and to “members of “ the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of #climatechange.” The judges were even briefed on the science behind rising global temperatures by the UN’s climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ahead of the hearings.

https://lnkd.in/dr4Tnf2u The European Court of Human Rights' verdict on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz et al. vs Switzerland marks a crucial moment, recognizing climate inaction as a breach of human rights. This ruling underscores the imperative for immediate and effective state-led measures against climate change. #ClimateAction #HumanRights It’s a wake-up call for us all to advocate for policies ensuring our environmental efforts align with safeguarding human rights. Together, we can steer towards a sustainable and just future. #SustainableFuture #EnvironmentalJustice

The European Court of Human Rights is about to deliver rulings on two landmark climate justice cases. These decisions could be a game-changer for how countries address climate change and protect human rights. It's no coincidence that the plaintiffs in these landmark cases represent groups most severely affected by climate change - women and youth. In "Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland," a group of Swiss women argue their government's inaction threatens their health, particularly during heatwaves. They believe this inaction violates their human rights. The second case, "Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others," is particularly groundbreaking. Six young Portuguese citizens are suing a record-breaking 33 European countries! They claim these nations' failure to cut emissions fast enough jeopardizes their present and future health, violating their human rights. Rising temperatures already limit their ability to play outdoors and even impact their sleep. Experts warn of even more extreme weather events if emissions aren't curbed. Save the Children has played a significant role in this historic youth case through a legal intervention. The rulings are expected on April 9th. This is a critical moment for climate justice in Europe, with global implications.

Climate Justice is the new buzzword. Mitigation of climate change will be achieved only by transitioning away from fossil fuels, implementing sustainable agriculture and ecosystem restoration. These are all public goods which require huge investments that will not be made by private corporations. Therefore, these investments have to be made by Governments. The resources for this have to be garnered on the polluter pays principle from those who are polluting the most currently and have done so historically. That is climate justice. This has to be done globally as otherwise the countries that do this will be economically at a competitive disadvantage compared to countries that don't. However, there is little progress in this respect and instead such fraudulent fixes like carbon credit trading are being proposed. Climate Justice will thus remain at the level of rhetoric only.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that effective protection from climate change is an actionable right for every signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights. Effectively, this may open up legal pathways for EU citizens to sue their state in case of insufficient climate policies. There are two contradictory main objections against this ruling. One is that courts are not democratically legitimized and therefore should not dictate state-led climate policies. The other is that climate change is a global challenge and therefore any single state cannot be legally responsible to address it. However, any existing global institution that (hypothetically) could coordinate such action (hello UN) is not - and likely never will be - more democratically legitimized than a court. In absence of viable alternatives and considering the failing self-commitment of states for effective climate policy, this critique thus falls flat. While voluntary climate action is always preferrable, new legal instruments for enforcement are, with regard to the challenges ahead, a necessity. #zerodegrees https://lnkd.in/eF2Fk48n

Earlier this week, the European Court of Human Rights handed down decisions for three highly anticipated climate cases. In both the Portuguese children's case (Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others) and the case of Carême v. France, the court has declared the applicants' claims inadmissible on grounds related to extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Court. This means the court will not rule on the applicants' substantive claims regarding the impacts of governments' climate inaction on their human rights. In the third 'Swiss grandmas' case (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland), the Grand Chamber of the ECHR has delivered a judgment finding a violation of the right to respect for private and family life. A majority of the judges (notably 16 to 1) held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. This represents the first time an international court has found that a state's failure to take adequate action on climate change can give rise to a violation of human rights. This case has the potential to influence the outcomes of climate litigation in other European countries, as well as other international bodies, in their decisions about the legal ramifications of inadequate climate policies. The case also represents a leap forward in the climate justice movement. Find the press releases here: https://lnkd.in/dbgVFnB2 #climatelitigation #ECHR #justice #judiciary

Historic public hearings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will begin tomorrow, when 98 countries will present arguments about their obligations to protect their people and ecosystems from climate change.   The hearings are a unique opportunity for countries to express their views, and marks the next stage of engagement in the ICJ process for an advisory opinion on state's legal obligations with respect to climate change. Engagement of international and national courts on climate change through advisory opinions and judicial decisions is a growing and welcome trend. WWF’s submission to the ICJ highlights states' dual responsibility to reduce emissions and protect and restore biodiversity: https://lnkd.in/gqcFyRWw. Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, WWF Global Climate and Energy Lead said: “The ICJ opinion has the potential to establish the legal obligations of countries in international law with more authority than any previous court ruling on climate. With most countries falling far short of their obligations to reduce emissions and protect and restore nature, this advisory opinion has the potential to send a powerful legal signal that states cannot ignore their legal duties to act.”

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that effective protection from climate change is an actionable right for every signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights. Effectively, this may open up legal pathways for EU citizens to sue their state in case of insufficient climate policies. There are two contradictory main objections against this ruling. One is that courts are not democratically legitimized and therefore should not dictate state-led climate policies. The other is that climate change is a global challenge and therefore any single state cannot be legally responsible to address it. However, any existing global institution that (hypothetically) could coordinate such action (hello UN) is not - and likely never will be - more democratically legitimized than a court. In absence of viable alternatives and considering the failing self-commitment of states for effective climate policy, this critique thus falls flat. While voluntary climate action is always preferrable, new legal instruments for enforcement are, with regard to the challenges ahead, a necessity. #zerodegrees