By Jorge Liboreiro, Isabel Marques da Silva and Mared Gwyn Jones
Something extraordinary happened this week in Strasbourg.
Six young people from Portugal entered the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to participate in the first hearing of their landmark legal case against 32 European countries.
The youths accuse the nations of failing to take sufficient action against the climate crisis and allow its worst effects to wreak havoc on their physical and mental health. The damage is so profound that their applicants argue that several of their fundamental rights, including the right to life and to be free of discrimination, are being violated.
In their testimonies, Cláudia (24 years old), Catarina (23), Martim (20), Sofia (18), André (15) and Mariana (11) say they have suffered first-hand the ravages of extreme heat in Portugal: wildfires, drought, school disruptions, sleep deprivation, anxiety.
They do not seek financial compensation. What they want instead is a binding ruling that compels governments to do more, much more, to preserve their futures.
“The fires are very close to where I live,” Martim told our colleague Isabel da Silva, who was on the ground covering the first day of the trial. “Fires that have already put my life and the lives of my sisters at risk. School days have been lost because of one of my minor respiratory illnesses.”
Gearóid Ó Cuinn, one of the members of the six-lawyer team who represent the plaintiffs, said the youth were forced to endure the destructive consequences of an energy policy they didn’t choose.
“Because they are young their future is at stake. So, they experience climate harms for a much greater period of time,” Ó Cuinn told Isabel. “Therefore, we are arguing they're discriminated against.”
On the opposite side was a formidable battalion of more than 80 lawyers defending the interests of 32 European nations, including all 27 EU member states, Switzerland, Norway, the UK, Russia and Turkey. A spokesperson said the six plaintiffs haven’t provided sufficient evidence to prove a “direct causal link” between government policies and the harm they have suffered in their personal lives.
Crucially, the countries rebuke the responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens beyond their own jurisdictions.
This is exactly what makes this case so remarkable.
In previous climate lawsuits, we have seen citizens and civil organisations challenge their own national governments and, in some instances, obtain rulings in their favour. This time, however, the Portuguese youths are not simply denouncing the Portuguese government – they’re going after 32 countries, most of which are miles away from any town they’ve ever lived in.
The case hones in on the very nature of the climate crisis: a spiralling phenomenon that cares nothing for borders and marches on with relentless brutality. Who’s really behind the wildfires that every summer devour hundreds of thousands of hectares across the country? Is it just Portugal, a nation with a modest GDP that obtains over 60% of its electricity from renewable sources? Or is it the larger economies, in Europe and beyond, that have spent the past few centuries frantically burning every fossil fuel they could get their hands on?
It will be up to the judges of the ECHR’s Grand Chamber to decide how far this responsibility reaches, both historically and geographically. Once the extent is defined, another hard task awaits: Does the failure to tackle climate change amount to a violation of human rights?
This is an equally bold question. Human rights violations have been traditionally associated with the concept of barbaric crimes, like torture, sexual violence or summary executions, and excessively intrusive action by state authorities, such as censorship and arbitrary detentions.
Now, the lawsuit argues that the failure to introduce sufficiently ambitious policies to slash greenhouse gas emissions and abolish fossil fuels creates an environment so hostile, so hazardous, that it inevitably infringes upon the fundamental liberties of citizens.
In fact, the original case alleged the violation of three rights under the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to life (Article 2), the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8), and the right to be free from discrimination (Article 14).
It was the court itself, on its own accord, that added an additional question on the possible abuse of Article 3. This is one of the briefest articles in the Convention and reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment