The 2015 Paris Agreement aimed to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, more and more scientists have warned that we are at risk of surpassing 2°C by 2050. Some of the most pessimistic scenarios already predict a rise of 4°C by 2100. But who is responsible for this runaway heating? Can they be punished by law? Here are the answers.
Climate justice explained Currently, 90 corporations are responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions globally. At the same time, three countries produce half of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions: China (30.11%), the United States (11.26%) and India (7.81%). The European Union is at the foot of this sad podium, with 6.08% of global pollution emissions.
This raises the question of inequalities in relation to climate change. Climate change is affecting the whole of the planet, but it is the result of activities by a comparatively small number of actors.
For this reason, many climate change activists are calling for legal reprisals for the most polluting corporations and states. In their view, these entities should be held accountable for the extreme climate events experienced by populations around the world, such as storms, droughts, flooding and rising sea levels. Environmental organisations like Greenpeace particularly condemn the injustice of the situation, as the world’s poorest populations, who are the least responsible for climate change, nonetheless face its most drastic consequences. These activists therefore aspire to hold these entities legally accountable for the human and environmental harms caused by climate change. Their argument is based on human rights, particularly the right to live in a healthy environment, and the right to health. And several tribunals have developed the jurisprudence on this subject.
The beginnings of climate justice in Europe The first legal action regarding failure to protect the climate came to us from the [Philippines https://www.amnesty.fr/presse/philippines-la-dcision-historique-de-la-commission]. Starting in 2015, a group of petitioners, led by Greenpeace, appealed to the Philippines Human Rights Commission to investigate whether companies linked to fossil fuels were responsible for climate change. In December 2019, the Commission announced that 47 businesses – including Shell and ExxonMobil – could be held accountable for human rights violations due to damages caused by climate breakdown. That was the first time that a human rights court had ruled on the subject.
Then three European countries followed suit. The first was the Netherlands, with the Urgenda case, named after a local environmental organisation. More than 800 claimants took the Dutch government to court for neglecting their responsibilities towards the environment. In a 2015 decision, upheld by the Dutch Supreme Court in 2018, the Hague tribunal found in favour of the claimants, based on the European Convention of Human Rights. As a result, the Netherlands was forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
The second European country to rule in this domain was France, in the famous “Case of the Century”. In an initial ruling in February 2021, the Paris Administrative Court acknowledged the role of the state in climate breakdown, and found that the French state guilty of failing its commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in relation to the 2015 Paris Agreement. The court ordered that the French state had until 31 December 2022 to take “all practical measures” to repair the environmental damages caused by the illegal breaches of carbon emission limits between 2015 and 2018.
Later, Germany was found guilty of similar acts. Despite ambitious intentions for a green transition, the country was increasingly resorting to oil and gas, inciting the ire of local environmental movements. After multiple organisations filed complaints, the German constitutional court ruled on 29 April 2021 that the government’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets were insufficent and in violation of human rights. The highest court in Germany required state authorities to revise their climate commitments in the name of protecting future generations.
Different European jurisdictions have made their mark on climate jurisprudence. Similar judgments in the vein of these major developments have now been passed in other regions of the world, such as Colombia and Pakistan.
More recently, an international court ruled on the subject. In an advisory opinion dated 21 May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea stated that states are obliged to take necessary measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of their commitments to protect and preserve the marine environment. This was the first time that an international court had made such a statement on the fight against climate change.
In 2010, following the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights, participants called for the creation of an international court for environmental and climate justice, and a global referendum on the necessity of a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The discussions followed several fundamental themes: the place of agriculture and industry in climate change, the rights of communities in natural areas under threat, and the responsibility of wealthy countries towards future climate refugees. But then 15 years went by. More than a decade later, this proposition has not seen the light of day. Europe has set a model for holding businesses and states legally accountable for their polluting emissions. In a context where international affirmation is much-needed, the Old Continent needs ambitious initiatives. If the EU advocated for the creation of an international climate court, through the United Nations, this would be well-received by the Global South, who are particularly affected by the consequences of climate breakdown. The EU would affirm its place on the international stage in the name of a global cause, and form vital ties with future allies who are experiencing significant economic growth.
Follow the comments:
|
