David against Goliath - and yet climate protection is becoming a human right

The ECtHR's ruling against Switzerland is well known, but what does it mean? The fact that not a single member state is taking sufficient measures to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement could perhaps change.

Is climate protection a human right?

For the first time, the judgment of the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) combines these two areas. The argument was based on key provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are based on the obligation of states to protect people from the effects of the climate crisis.

The ECtHR's ruling underlines this view and confirms its position that the right of the individual should be transferred to the state as a whole, thus placing it under an obligation to protect the climate.

Conversely, failure to take adequate measures is a violation of human rights.

Turning point in climate policy?

The ruling could be an absolute turning point in climate policy.

Paul Gragl, Professor of European Law at the University of Graz, says: "The ruling is groundbreaking. The court states: 'The state has a positive obligation to do something about climate change. This has never happened before. This is an enforceable right."

"In Austria, the Convention on Human Rights has constitutional status. This means that violations could be brought before the Constitutional Court in the future," continues Prof. Gragl.

The assessment of a similar case that occurred in Austria last year could be different today.

At the time, twelve children and young people sued the Republic of Austria for endangering their future due to the Austrian federal government's lack of climate protection measures. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed the lawsuit.

Can courts save the climate, or better, humanity?

Rather not. In any case, this requires political decisions. However, if politicians lose sight of their goals, the judiciary can now intervene.

This is certainly a groundbreaking development.