Strategic Climate Change Litigation: Potential for Legal Adaptation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
With the increasing emergency of climate change and the lack of concrete action from States to adapt and mitigate climate change effects, number of legal and non-legal means of contestation emerged to try and accelerate climate action. Climate change litigation is one of them, notably trying to enhance legal adaptation. This contribution will argue that climate change litigation, when used strategically, can have direct and indirect effects to create a more effective climate governance. The hypothesis that will be tested is that climate change litigation cases have an impact that goes beyond verdicts, having the power to affect regulations’ enforcement and creation, and therefore participate in legal adaptation and more effective governance. The effects could be both direct, influencing the State to legislate, or indirect, for instance by co-opting the public opinion or the media. The contribution will start with an overview of the evolution of both climate change litigation and scholarship, as well as the definition debates. A second section will focus on strategic litigation, starting with the legal issues that arise in litigation and the strategic choices available for legal activists in first sub-section. Then, impacts as well as the ways in which strategic choices can maximise impacts of litigation will be analysed. The third part will present a Swiss landmark case: Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Switzerland.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Works are licensed under Creative Commons license “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).”
This license permits readers to share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format under the following terms: Attribution — one must give appropriate credit, and provide a link to the license. Non Commercial — one may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If one remixes, transforms, or builds upon the material, one may not distribute the modified material.
References
Christina Voigt, “Introduction: Climate Change as a Challenge for Global Governance, Courts and Human Rights” in Wolfgang Kahl and Marc-Phillipe Weller (eds), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook (Beck/Hart/Nomos 2021) 2.
Peter Newell, ‘Civil Society, Corporate Accountability and the Politics of Climate Change’ (2008) 8 Global Environmental Politics 122, 130–134, 150.
Juridification means that there is a generalized and repeated recourse to law to solve any conflicts or issues. Legalisation and judicialization are two other processes that are close to juridification. To see more literature on subject see: Lars Chr Blichner and Anders Molander, “Mapping Juridification” (2008) 14 European Law Journal 36; Anne Mette Magnussen and Anna Banasiak, “Juridification: Disrupting the Relationship between Law and Politics?” (2013) 19 European Law Journal 325.
See for instance: Maiko Meguro, ‘Litigating Climate Change through International Law: Obligations Strategy and Rights Strategy’ (2020) 33 Leiden Journal of International Law 933.
Hari M Osofsky, “Climate Change Litigation as Pluralist Legal Dialogue?” (2007) 43 A Stanford Journal of International Law 181, 182; Ivano Alogna, Christine Bakker and Jean-Pierre Gauci, Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives (Brill | Nijhoff 2021) <https://brill.com/view/title/59537>; Wolfgang Kahl and Marc-Phillipe Weller (eds), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook (Beck/Hart/Nomos 2021) <https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/climate-change-litigation-9781509948734/> accessed 13 April 2022.
“Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.” (Cambridge University Press 2022) Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <10.1017/9781009157926>.
Voigt (n 2) 3.
‘Climate Change Litigation Databases - Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’ (Climate Change Litigation) <http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/> accessed 3 May 2022.
Countries like the US, Australia or Canada have refused to ratify treaties or implemented their obligations badly, mostly arguing that it would cause an economic recession. Shi-Ling Hsu, “A Realistic Evaluation of Climate Change Litigation through the Lens of a Hypothetical Lawsuit Natural Resources and Environmental Law Issue” (2008) 79 University of Colorado Law Review 701, 705–707.
Mary Ellen O’Connell, “Enforcement and the Success of International Environmental Law” 3 19, 53–54; Nele Matz, “Financial And Other Incentives For Complying With Mea Obligations” in U Beyerlin, Peter-Tobias Stoll and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds), Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements (Brill 2006) 305 <http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/10.1163/ej.9789004146174.i-394.102> accessed 24 March 2019.
The hostile political environment of some governments, for instance those of Australia and the US, could explain why they have the highest number of climate change litigation, but this is debated in the literature. Joana Setzer and Lisa Vanhala, “Climate Change Litigation: A Review of Research on Courts and Litigants in Climate Governance” (2019) 10 Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, 7; Newell (n 3) 130.
Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press 2015) 10–11 <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change-litigation/DB1A948D69FE080EBFFB938EE2D58545> accessed 2 November 2021; Setzer and Vanhala (n 12) 2–3.
“Status of Ratification of the Convention | UNFCCC” <https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/status-of-ratification/status-of-ratification-of-the-convention> accessed 6 May 2022; Kevin R Gray, Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016) 4–8 <https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/law/9780199684601.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199684601> accessed 6 May 2022.
Gray, Tarasofsky and Carlarne (n 14) 8.
Daniel Bodansky, “The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?” (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 288, 289.
Several countries have had the Paris Agreement used in the courts to “push for concrete action.” Michael Burger and Justin Gundlach, The Status of Climate Change Litigation : A Global Review (United Nations Environment Programme 2017) 8; Wendy J Miles and Nicola K Swan, “Climate Change and Dispute Resolution” (2017) 11 Dispute Resolution International 117, 124.
On the implementation of the Paris Agreement and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), see notably: “Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) | UNFCCC” <https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs> accessed 3 May 2022; Lennart Wegener, “Can the Paris Agreement Help Climate Change Litigation and Vice Versa?” (2020) 1 Transnational Environmental Law 17, 19; Bodansky (n 16); Brian J Preston, “The Influence of the Paris Agreement on Climate Litigation: Legal Obligations and Norms (Part I)” (2021) 33 Journal of Environmental Law 1; Claudio Franzius and Anne Kling, “The Paris Climate Agreement and Liability Issues” in Wolfgang Kahl and Marc-Phillipe Weller (eds), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook (Beck/Hart/Nomos 2021).
Wegener (n 18) 25–36.
Setzer and Vanhala (n 12) 2–3.
Ibid 2; Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, “Climate Change Litigation” (2020) 16 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 21, 28.
In 2015, the authors first described “distinct but overlapping waves”, and in 2020, added a layer of complexity by discussing trends of both scholarship and the caselaw as “a harmonic made up of multiple standing waves.” Peel and Osofsky, ‘Climate Change Litigation’ (n 21) 29–31; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13).
Christian Huglo, Le Contentieux Climatique: Une Révolution Judiciaire Mondiale (Bruylant 2018); David Markell and JB Ruhl, “An Empirical Survey of Climate Change Litigation in the United States” [2010] Environmental Law Reporter 10644; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13); Peel and Osofsky, “Climate Change Litigation” (n 21); Meredith Wilensky, “Climate Change in the Courts: An Assessment of Non-U.S. Climate Litigation” (2015) 26 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 131; Setzer and Vanhala (n 12).
For a discussion on the strength and weakness of these databases see: Shaikh Eskander, Sam Fankhauser and Joana Setzer, “Global Lessons from Climate Change Legislation and Litigation” (2021) 2 Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 44, 47–56; Joana Setzer and Mook Bangalore, “Regulating Climate Change in the Courts” [2017] Trends in Climate Change Legislation 181.
Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, “A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?” (2018) 7 Transnational Environmental Law 37; Setzer and Vanhala (n 12); Gianluca de Fazio, “Legal Opportunity Structure and Social Movement Strategy in Northern Ireland and Southern United States” (2012) 53 International Journal of Comparative Sociology 3; Brian Doherty and Graeme Hayes, “Having Your Day in Court: Judicial Opportunity and Tactical Choice in Anti-GMO Campaigns in France and the United Kingdom” (2014) 47 Comparative Political Studies 3; Chris Hilson, “Framing Time in Climate Change Litigation” (2018) Online Oñati Socio-legal Series 1; Chris Hilson, “New Social Movements: The Role of Legal Opportunity” (2002) 9 Journal of European Public Policy 238.
Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 31, 35–36.
Setzer and Vanhala (n 12) 3.
Chris Hilson, “Climate Change Litigation: An Explanatory Approach (or Bringing Grievance Back In)” [2010] Climate change: la riposta del diritto 421, 422; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 4–5.
Markell and Ruhl, in their survey of USA’s climate litigation, included “any piece of federal, state, tribal, or local administrative or judicial litigation in which the party filings or tribunal decisions directly and expressly (emphasis added) raise issues or fact of law regarding the substance or policy of climate change causes and impacts.” Similar definitions were adopted with minor modifications by the Sabin Centre, UNEP reports and Wilensky’s survey of non-USA litigation. Markell and Ruhl (n 23) 10647–10648; David Markell and JB Ruhl, “An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual” [2012] Florida Law Review 15, 26–27; Wilensky (n 23) 134–135; Burger and Gundlach (n 17) 10; Michael Burger and J Daniel Metzger, “Global Climate Litigation Report: Status Review” (2020).
As an example, see Peel and Osofsky’s 4 concentric circles’ diagram to define climate change litigation. Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 8.
Geetanjali Ganguly, Joana Setzer and Veerle Heyvaert, “If at First You Don’t Succeed: Suing Corporations for Climate Change” (2018) 38 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 841, 843; Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2019 Snapshot” (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment 2019) 2.
Osofsky, “Climate Change Litigation as Pluralist Legal Dialogue?” (n 6) 574.
David B Hunter, “The Implications of Climate Change Litigation for International Environmental Law-Making” [2007] SSRN Electronic Journal 1 <http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1005345> accessed 23 January 2019; Marilyn Averill, “Climate Litigation: Ethical Implications and Societal Impacts” (2007) 85 Denver University Law Review 899, 918.
Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2022 Snapshot” (Grantham Research Institute (LSE) 2022) 2.
Greenpeace Philippines - Climate Justice and Liability Campaign, “Holding Your Government Accountable for Climate Change: A People’s Guide” (Greenpeace 2018) <https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2018/12/4fdd4d8a-peoples_guide_fnl_2.pdf> accessed 29 April 2022.
In the US, the non-profit Our Children’s Trust brings youth-led climate cases to the courts. Our Children’s Trust, “Mission Statement” <https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/mission-statement> accessed 28 April 2022.
Christopher Rootes, “Is There a European Environmental Movement?” in John Barry, Brian Baxter and Richard Dunphy (eds), Europe, globalization and sustainable development (Routledge New York 2004) 49–50; Maryam Golnaraghi and others, “Climate Change Litigation – Insights into the Evolving Global Landscape” (The Geneva Association 2021) 30.
Setzer and Higham (n 34) 30.
To access documentations of each steps of the Urgenda case, see Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, “Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands” <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/> accessed 9 July 2022.
Roger Cox, “A Climate Change Litigation Precedent: Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands” (2016) 34 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 143; Peel and Osofsky, “A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?” (n 25); Setzer and Vanhala (n 12); Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, “Climate Change Litigation” (2020) 16 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 21.
Urgenda Foundation, “Climate Case: Landmark Decision by Dutch Supreme Court” <https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/> accessed 15 May 2022.
Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396 (English translation) [2015] Rb Den Haag ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196 al. 2.8-2.69; Jolene Lin, “The First Successful Climate Negligence Case: A Comment on Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment)” (2015) 5 Climate Law 65, 68–74.
Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396 (English translation) (n 42) al. 4.37-4.44; Joana Setzer and Dennis van Berkel, “Urgenda v State of the Netherlands: Lessons for International Law and Climate Change Litigants" (Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment) <https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/urgenda-v-state-of-the-netherlands-lessons-for-international-law-and-climate-change-litigants/> accessed 15 May 2022.
Rechtbank Den Haag, Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396 (English translation) (n 42) al. 4.18, 4.79.
Voigt (n 2) 8.
Arthur Neslen, “Dutch Government Ordered to Cut Carbon Emissions in Landmark Ruling” The Guardian (24 June 2015) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling> accessed 15 May 2022.
Setzer and Vanhala (n 12) 3.
Burger and Gundlach (n 17) 8.
“Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change” (n 7) 56.
Ibid 29–32.
Setzer and Higham (n 34) 2.
See for instance: Ben Batros and Tessa Khan, “Thinking Strategically about Climate Litigation” (OpenGlobalRights) <https://www.openglobalrights.org/thinking-strategically-about-climate-litigation/> accessed 14 April 2022; Aidan Ricketts, Strategic Litigation (2021); Jacqueline Peel and Rebekkah Markey-Towler, “Recipe for Success?: Lessons for Strategic Climate Litigation from the Sharma, Neubauer, and Shell Cases” (2021) 22 German Law Journal 1484; Ganguly, Setzer and Heyvaert (n 31).
Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 7; Chris Hilson, “UK Climate Change Litigation: Between Hard and Soft Framing” in Stephen Farrall, Ahmed Tawhida and Duncan French (eds), Criminological and legal consequences of climate change. (Hart Publishing 2012).
Setzer and Vanhala (n 12) 9–10.
Setzer and Bangalore (n 24) 179.
Setzer and Higham (n 34) 2.
Setzer and Bangalore (n 24) 176.
“Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report” (Cambridge University Press 2001) Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 379.
Peel and Osofsky, “A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?” (n 25) 40; Ian R Noble and Saleemul Huq, “Adaptation Needs and Options in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (Cambridge University Press 2014) 838; Elizabeth Donger, “Lessons on ‘Adaptation Litigation’ from the Global South” (Verfassungsblog, 2022) 1 <https://verfassungsblog.de/lessons-on-adaptation-litigation-from-the-global-south/> accessed 12 April 2022.
Victor B Flatt, “Adapting Laws for a Changing World: A Systemic Approach to Climate Change Adaptation” (2012) 64 Florida Law Review 269; Donger (n 59).
Peel and Osofsky, “A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?” (n 25) 39–40; Stirling University and Annalisa Savaresi, “Human Rights and the Impacts of Climate Change: Revisiting the Assumptions” (2021) 11 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 231.
Eric A Posner, “Climate Change and International Human Rights Litigation: A Critical Appraisal” (2007) 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1925, 1927,1931.
Meguro (n 5); Helen Keller and Corina Heri, “The Future Is Now: Climate Cases Before the ECtHR” [2022] Nordic Journal of Human Rights 1; Stirling University and Savaresi (n 61).
Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings, Pressure Through Law (Routledge 1992) 8; Hilson, “Framing Time in Climate Change Litigation” (n 25) 5–15; Lisa Vanhala, “The Comparative Politics of Courts and Climate Change” (2013) 22 Environmental Politics 447, 457; Joana Setzer and Rebecca Byrnes, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Snapshot” (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (LSE) 2020) 13; Richard L Abel, “Speaking Law to Power: Occasions for Cause Lawyering” in Austin Sarat and Stuart Scheingold (eds), Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities (Oxford University Press 1998).
To see a non-exhaustive list of reactive litigation, see: <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case-category/protesters/>.
This is the case of Credit Suisse Protestor Trial. For more details on the case see: <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/credit-suisse-protesters-trial/>.
Zoe Russell, “Resistance and Movement in Neoliberal Society: A Literature Review on the Criminalisation of Dissent” (2020) 6 Stirling International Journal of Postgraduate Research 1; Steven E Barkan, “Criminal Prosecution and the Legal Control of Protest” (2006) 11 Mobilization 181.
Setzer and Higham (n 34) 23; Chris Hilson, “Environmental SLAPPs in the UK: Threat or Opportunity?” (2016) 25 Environmental Politics 248.
Criminal proceedings are not generally taken into account in the definition of SLAPPs. Hilson, “Environmental SLAPPs in the UK: Threat or Opportunity?”’ (n 68) 249–250.
de Fazio (n 25).
Voigt (n 2).
Peel and Markey-Towler (n 52) 1845.
Ibid 1487.
For a discussion around legal issues of climate litigations see: Voigt (n 2) 14–17.
Michael Burger and Daniel J Metzger, “Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review” (UNEP 2020) 30; Mehrdad Payandeh, “The Role of Courts in Climate Protection and the Separation of Powers” in Wolfgang Kahl and Marc-Phillipe Weller (eds), Climate Change Litigation: A Handbook (Beck/Hart/Nomos 2021).
The standing requirements will differ in each jurisdiction, some will require the plaintiff to be “injured or likely to suffer an injury” and other will have less restrictive standing rules which will allow an NGO to bring the case to court. Burger and Metzger (n 75) 27–28; de Fazio (n 25).
O’Connell (n 11) 61; Burger and Metzger (n 75) 27–28; Hari M Osofsky, “The Geography of Climate Change Litigation: Implications for Transnational Regulatory Governance” (2005) 83 Washington University Law Review 1789, 1809–1810.
Emphasis added; Payandeh (n 75) 66–67.
Hari M Osofsky, “Climate Change Litigation as Pluralist Legal Dialogue?” (n 6) 181, 182; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 34; Averill (n 33) 90–911; Newell (n 3) 123.
Osofsky, ‘The Geography of Climate Change Litigation: Implications for Transnational Regulatory Governance’ (n 77) 1794,1803.
Ibid 1813–1818.
Actors being separated in three categories by Osofsky: (1) petitioners, who are bringing the case to court, (2) respondents creating the externalities affecting climate change, and (3) adjudicators who are responsible for delivering a verdict.
Osofsky makes a comparison between the Inuit populations and low-lying island states potentially having the same types of claims related to climate change, but being situated in very different places. Osofsky, “The Geography of Climate Change Litigation: Implications for Transnational Regulatory Governance” (n 77) 1805, 1809.
Corporate activities (i.e. export, import, extraction, transformation and use) are happening in different places, which make it difficult both to regulate and to adjudicate. Ibid 1795.
Notably because adjudicators will be influenced by their “socioeconomic, political, and educational experiences.” O’Connell (n 11) 62.
Averill (n 33) 900; Miles and Swan (n 17) 117.
Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 36.
Ibid.
Peel and Markey-Towler (n 52) 1486–1487; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 47–49; Hunter (n 33) 1–2.
Hunter (n 33) 3–4; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 50, 222–223.
Averill (n 33) 900–908; Hunter (n 33) 4–5; Marilyn Averill, “Linking Climate Litigation and Human Rights” (2009) 18 Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 139, 144; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 47.
Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 10.
Hunter (n 33) 4.
Ibid; Peel and Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (n 13) 222; Wegener (n 18) 34.
For more details see: Tawhida Ahmed and Duncan French, “Situating Climate Change in (International) Law: A Triptych of Competing Narratives” in Stephen Farrall, Ahmed Tawhida and Duncan French (eds), Criminological and Legal Consequences of Climate Change (Hart Publishing 2012) <10.5040/9781472565945>.
To access documentations of each step of the ECtHR procedure, see: <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-council-and-others/> accessed 9 July 2022.
Brigitte Hürlimann, “Das Klima Vor Gericht” Die Rebublik (2022) 1.
Cordelia Christiane Bähr and others, “KlimaSeniorinnen: Lessons from the Swiss Senior Women’s Case for Future Climate Litigation” (2018) 9 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 194, 202; Johannes Reich, Flora Hausamman and Nina Victoria Boss, “Climate Change Litigation Before the ECtHR : How Senior Women from Switzerland Might Advance Human Rights Law” (Verfassungsblog, 2022) 1 <https://verfassungsblog.de/climate-change-litigation-before-the-ecthr/> accessed 21 May 2022.
Bähr and others (n 98) 204, 216; Reich, Hausamman and Boss (n 98) 2.
Bähr and others (n 98) 203.
Federal Act on the Reduction of CO2 Emissions, 23 December 2011 (Status as of 1 January 2022), RO 2012 6989’ <https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2012/855/en>.
Registrar of the Court, ‘”Grand Chamber to Examine Case Concerning Complaint by Association That Climate Change is Having an Impact on Their Living Conditions and Health - Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, (Press Release)”; Bähr and others (n 98) 202–203; Reich, Hausamman and Boss (n 98) 2.
See (n 9).
Bähr and others (n 98) 201.
Ibid 195.
Sabin Center, “The Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) and Others.” <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/> accessed 14 May 2022.
To see a detailed account of the potential and hurdle present with the 4 climate case brought to the ECtHR see: Keller and Heri (n 63).
Bähr and others (n 98) 203.
Ibid.
Swiss Supreme Court, “ATF 139 II 279” consd. 2.3 accessed 29 July 2022.
Keller and Heri (n 63) 3.
Bähr and others (n 98) 203; Keller and Heri (n 63) 3.
Keller and Heri (n 63) 6.
Bähr and others (n 98) 204.
Sabin Center, “European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council and Others” <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-council-and-others/> accessed 14 May 2022.
Ibid.
For details and documents of the third party interventions: ‘Third-Party Interventions List’ (KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz) <https://www.klimaseniorinnen.ch/drittparteien-interventionen/> accessed 14 May 2022.
Registrar of the Court (n 102).
Reich, Hausamman and Boss (n 98) 3.
ibid 1; Bähr and others (n 98) 205.
For a details account of the potential of the case see: Keller and Heri (n 63); Reich, Hausamman and Boss (n 98).
Peel and Markey-Towler (n 52) 1845.
Our Children’s Trust (n 36); Camille Cameron and Riley Weyman, ‘Recent Youth-Led and Rights-Based Climate Change Litigation in Canada: Reconciling Justiciability, Charter Claims and Procedural Choices’ (2022) 34 Journal of Environmental Law 195; Julia Olson, ‘Youth and Climate Change: An Advocates Argument for Holding the US Governments Feet to the Fire’ (2016) 72 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 79; Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States (European Court of Human Rights).
Bähr and others (n 98) 214.
For details on the latest developments on the Swiss climate change regime see : “Giorgio Grasso, Démocratie Directe et Changement Climatique : Un Regard d’Italie Sur Une Votation Populaire Fédérale Récente et Sur Certains Problèmes Constitutionnels de La Protection Du Climat” (Weblaw), 9 May 2022.
Bähr and others (n 98) 198.
The two other case being : X v Austria, and Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway. Keller and Heri (n 63).
Registrar of the Court (n 102); Registrar of the Court, “Grand Chamber to Examine Case Concerning Global Warming - Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others, (Press Release)”.
Keller and Heri (n 63) 6.
Ibid 17–22; Council of Europe, The Conscience of Europe: 50 Years of the European Court of Human Rights (Third Millennium 2010).
Setzer and Higham (n 34) 27–28.