Progress on climate rights in courts around the world
The Supreme Federal Court building in Brasilia, the capital of Brazil. photo: Leandro Neumann Chufu
Although the US Supreme Court recently delivered a major setback to the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. West Virginia. five.EPAThe rulings that are being issued by courts in other countries show that courts around the world remain important forums for the potential advancement of climate rights.
European Court of Human Rights youth case moves forward
On June 30, the European Court of Human Rights announced that Duarte Agostinho and others v Portugal and 32 other countries It will be heard by the Supreme Court, which consists of 17 judges of the court. The Grand Chamber examines cases that raise “serious issues” affecting the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights or the Additional Protocols, or “where the outcome of the issue resolved by the Grand Chamber may be inconsistent with previous judgments made by the Court”. court. “
exist Duarte Augustine, six Portuguese youths have filed complaints with 33 countries, accusing them of failing to take adequate action on climate change, violating the human rights of petitioners, and demanding more ambitious domestic action from EU member states. The applicants claim that because climate change disproportionately affects younger generations, wildfires and rising temperatures have affected their human rights and further violated the prohibition against discrimination. The case was brought directly to the European Court of Human Rights without first exhausting domestic remedies, based on the urgent need to address the climate crisis. Duarte Augustine The State party had been notified previously, was considered an “impact case” and was considered a priority, meaning it was taken immediately before the backlog of cases. Contracting parties also have shorter deadlines to present their arguments and apply for merit.
of There are currently 22 cases pending in the Grand Court –a small part There are currently 72,100 cases pending before the courts – Three are climate cases. Earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights had referred two other climate cases to the Grand Court, Climate Seniors v Switzerland and Lent v France. Hearings related to the three cases are likely to take place before the end of the year.
Brazil’s Supreme Court recognizes Paris Agreement as a human rights treaty
On the same day, on the other side of the world, Brazil’s Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of the Paris Agreement in an unprecedented manner.exist PSB et al. v. Brazil (on the Climate Fund) (ADPF 708), the majority opinion of the Brazilian Supreme Court considers the Paris Agreement to be a human rights treaty.
The case, filed in 2020, relates to the government’s failure to make payments from the climate fund.Brazilian climate fund Founded in 2009, is National Climate Policy Plan. The Climate Fund is authorized to use its annual authorized budget for projects and research aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change. However, in 2019 and 2020, the Bolsonaro government failed to allocate the available resources. Plaintiffs seek an “unconstitutional omission” statement against the paralysis of the fund’s operations and governance, as well as an injunction forcing the government to restart the climate fund. In response, the government argues that (a) there is no constitutional question, as the constitution does not explicitly provide for the establishment of a climate fund; (b) the facts in question relate to the management of funds, which is the prerogative of the federal government; and (c) court intervention would violate the three powers principle of separation.
The majority rejected the government’s arguments and ruled that the executive branch could not ignore the mandate of the legislative branch. Instead, the executive branch has a constitutional obligation to enforce and distribute climate fund funds to mitigate climate change, based on the separation of powers and constitutional rights to a healthy environment. The court further found that, in turn, the judiciary must act to avoid a setback in environmental protection. In practice, this means that governments have a responsibility to allocate funds where they are most needed to mitigate climate change, and the government’s discretion in allocating funds may be subject to judicial scrutiny.
The federal government also argues that the climate fund stems from Brazil’s international commitments within the context of multilateral climate change treaties, and since it is not Brazilian law, it does not bind the federal government to enforce compliance. Most, however, ruled that protecting the climate is a constitutional value. The Supreme Court clarified that environmental law treaties are a special type of human rights treaties that enjoy “supranational” status. Therefore, according to the decision, no legally valid options exist in the fight against climate change. This “super-legality” of human rights treaties means that they are higher in the legal hierarchy than “regular” law. If a law passed by Congress conflicts with the provisions of a human rights treaty, the human rights treaty (and the environmental and climate treaties based on this ruling) govern. In practice, relevant laws are overridden by treaties. Therefore, any Brazilian law or decree that contradicts the Paris Agreement, including NDCs, may be invalid. Any act or omission that violates this protection is a direct violation of the Constitution and human rights. The constitutional obligation to allocate funds effectively implies an obligation to mitigate climate change, taking into account international commitments under the climate change framework. This interpretation could have major implications for several unsolved climate cases in Brazil.
When negotiating the Paris Agreement, there was a lot of disagreement over the passage of human rights obligations in substantive parts of the text.Ultimately, human rights were shelved in the preamble, stating that “climate change is a common concern of mankind” and “all parties should respect, promote and consider their respective human rights obligations when taking action to address climate change.” Although scholars debate Considering the Paris Agreement a human rights treaty, Brazilian courts were the first to formally recognize it.
Adapted from an article by Columbia Climate Institute Sabine Center for Climate Change Law
