Climate Victory in Switzerland Signals Promise for Enforced Environmental Human Rights

Protesters take to the streets in Zurich, Switzerland, to advocate for the climate in 2019. (Wikimedia Commons)

The European Court of Human Rights has issued its first-ever climate case victory, ruling on April 9, 2024 that Switzerland has failed in its obligations to slow the impact of global warming. The judgment states that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, opening up new avenues for environmental protection enforcement that have previously been lacking in international law. 

Senior Women for Climate Protection launched the case, which calls for better protection of women’s health in relation to climate change, over 9 years ago. The group claims that Switzerland’s inadequate efforts to meet its emission reduction targets directly contributed to the heat waves that left many women suffering from health attacks and even unable to leave their homes. The summer of 2022 saw more than 61,000 heat-related deaths across Europe, of which women and the elderly made up a significant portion, according to the Washington Post.

The European Convention on Human Rights encompasses a “right to effective protection” by national authorities from “serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being, and quality of life.” The determination that Switzerland’s inaction violated this right is binding and could influence the law of the 46 other European countries under the court’s jurisdiction, says the BBC. However, the recognition of environmental rights as human rights extends beyond Europe.

The small mining city of La Oroya, Peru, also made history this past month with a ruling that determined that Peru violated the right to health and a healthy environment by allowing La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to produce high levels of contaminants that have seriously affected the health of the community for a century. The smelting and refining plant produces a myriad of harmful contaminants. Lead, in particular, has been detected in the blood of 99 percent of children at levels that exceed acceptable limits established by the WHO. Newborns have inherited high blood lead levels while in the womb.

The Peruvian government was aware of these high contamination levels but continued to grant exemptions from environmental laws. Citizens who spoke out against the pollution were photographed, threatened, or had their homes marked. In the meantime, rates of cancer, respiratory illness, and cardiovascular disease continued to rise. The ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued on March 22, 2024 ordered that the government remediate the environmental damage and provide health care for those affected, among a myriad of other stipulations.

Courts in Australia, Brazil, and South Korea are also currently considering human rights-based climate cases. Additionally, the right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change was recently confirmed in the Supreme Court of India, contributing to the recent positive trajectory of climate justice progress.

Although the right to a healthy environment is now recognized by 161 nations, international climate agreements continue to face challenges with enforcement and compliance. However, reframing these particular instances as violations of human rights law has brought these issues into court and produced unprecedented victories. It is expected that more climate change litigation based on violations of human rights will follow these rulings, possibly ushering in a new era of accountability for environmental harm.