The European Court of Human Rights' April 9 climate rulings and the future (thereof)

Abstract

Across Europe, activists of all ages have taken to the streets to pressure their governments to take effective action against climate change. As domestic decision-makers failed them, they knocked at Strasbourg’s door. Three generations of right-holders turned to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): senior women, young citizens, and a middle-aged ex-mayor. They complained about the past and current effects of climate change on their enjoyment of human rights, as well as the expected worsening of the climate crisis and its future effects on their rights. Expectations were high. Not only would the ECtHR deal with the nexus between climate change and human rights in the here and now but also for the future, including the thorny question of “intergenerational equity,” i.e., the duties owed today to individuals too young to have a voice, or even not-yet-born. Did the ECtHR live up to these expectations? The answer is bittersweet. Some room was definitely given to future generations and intergenerational equity considerations—almost as a common thread through the cases (especially in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and, more incidentally, in Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States). At the same time, the April 9 rulings seem to have been heavily influenced by the ECtHR’s concern for preserving its own future and its refusal to become some sort of great global climate change court. While foreseeable, this compromise may have disappointed a few future generations aficionados. In this blog post, we briefly touch on the bitter and the sweet.