How Environmentalists Are Winning Lawsuits by Invoking Human Rights
In the last ten years, citizens and NGOs worldwide have filed more than 100 cases against their governments for the inadequate implementation of climate change strategies. This trend has created a new branch of law known as “government framework cases,” occurring in fifteen countries worldwide including Brazil, Italy, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Turkey.
Meanwhile, researchers project that as global temperatures rise, so too will the filing of environmental-based lawsuits. If climate change continues, there will be a rise in violent crimes, economic collapses, property suits after natural disasters, and immigration cases from climate refugees. Examining environmental litigation and which strategies are most effective is a crucial step in reducing global warming rates.
Similar to other social justice movements, environmental litigation can be categorized into waves. Beginning in the 1980s, the initial wave consisted of challenges against individual government decisions that detrimentally affected the environment. In the mid-2000s to early 2010s, increased climate change policies spurred the second wave, pulling corporations into environmental lawsuits. The third wave, which started near the time of the 2015 Paris Agreement and which continues to unfold, relies mainly on appeals to human rights.
The third wave is finding success by taking states to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), arguing that certain policies or inactions are violating citizens’ human rights, namely rights to life. The ECtHR enforced the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the Council of Europe launched in the aftermath of the Holocaust, in order to protect citizens from mistreatment by the state. The Council of Europe, a body distinct from the European Union, has forty-six member states, and no nation has voluntarily withdrawn from the ECHR. Its judgments are legally binding on member states. On top of legal fees and the loss of resources, states may pay appropriate compensation for damages. The Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of these judgments.
The first landmark case that created a legal pathway for state-binding environmental lawsuits was the Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands. The environmental nonprofit, joined by 900 Dutch citizens, brought a lawsuit against the government to compel reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiffs argued that it was unreasonable and negligent for the Dutch government to aim to reduce emissions by 17 percent when a reduction of 25 percent was needed based on reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Urgenda pointed to three sources of law supporting this duty of care, including Articles two and eight of the ECHR. The Hague District Court initially declared that Urgenda could not rely on the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in the Dutch Court of Appeals, judges held that Urgenda could rely on the ECHR because, under Dutch constitutional law, its rights-granting provisions form part of domestic law, making them enforceable in national courts.
On April 24, 2020, the Dutch government announced its plan to comply with the Urgenda ruling, saying it would reduce coal-fired power plant capacity and invest in preserving biodiversity and clean air.
As further illustrated in following cases such as Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and Neubauer v. Germany, invoking Articles two and eight of the ECHR has demonstrated success in the courtrooms through rulings in favor of the people. These cases reveal that by conducting thorough analysis and persisting, people have the power to take governments to court and create an economical, equitable, and eco-friendly world for humankind.