Swiss parliament defies ECHR on climate women’s case
Swiss women who secured a landmark judgment on climate change from the European Court of Human Rights express dismay and a sense of betrayal following their parliament’s decision not to comply with it.
Known as “climate seniors,” these women brought their case to the court in Strasbourg, France, arguing that Switzerland’s insufficient response to climate change, especially concerning extreme heat events linked to global warming, violated their right to health and life.
In April, the court sided with them and mandated Switzerland, which has fallen short of its greenhouse gas reduction targets, to take more decisive action. This decision was unprecedented and legally binding for member states.
Climate activists had hoped this ruling would set a precedent, signaling that human rights law could protect citizens affected by deteriorating environmental conditions.
However, Switzerland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to reject the ECHR’s decision. They asserted that Switzerland already possessed an effective climate change strategy and emphasized their disagreement was not an act of disregard, despite criticism suggesting otherwise.
During the parliamentary debate, emotions ran high. Right-wing politicians criticized what they viewed as interference by “foreign judges,” while Green Party members condemned the discussion’s tone as “shameful” and “populist.”
Switzerland is currently not on course to reach its Paris Climate Agreement goals – which seek to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – and opinion polls show many Swiss are worried about this.
The Alpine climate is especially sensitive to global warming, and studies show that their glaciers, which are crucial to Europe’s water supply, could be gone by the end of the century if temperatures continue to rise.
But the Swiss are also very proud of their system of direct democracy. They are used to making decisions themselves, and the “foreign judges” jibe resonates with them.
Last weekend, voters backed government proposals to generate more electricity from renewables. Despite environmental groups’ claims that the measures are still not enough to meet climate goals, opinion polls show a majority of voters reject the ECHR’s involvement, and think Switzerland is already doing enough to protect the environment.
Other countries – notably the United Kingdom – will be looking closely at Switzerland’s rebuff of the rights court. The UK government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda has led to pushback from the Strasbourg court, and some British voters now say the UK should leave the body.
In Switzerland, such a move is very definitely not on the cards – or not yet.
Although parliament has suggested compliance with the ECHR’s climate ruling is not necessary, the final decision on whether to abide by it is up to the Swiss government, which is expected to announce its verdict in August.
The ECHR did not tell Switzerland exactly what it had to do to tackle climate change, it simply said it had to do more.
It is possible that, in the good Swiss tradition of compromise, the government will offer the court in Strasbourg a list of all the measures it has taken since the climate seniors first started building their case, and hope that is accepted.
If it is not, the Swiss climate seniors say they may return to court.
