Representing over 2,000 women aged over 75, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and its four members sued their Swiss Government for “failing” to sufficiently protect the climate. Europe’s top human rights court ruled in their favour, paving the way for future means of holding governments accountable.

The Swiss association’s main argument pointed at the authorities’ shortfall in curbing global warming that had an “adverse” effect on their “lives, living conditions and health.” Additionally, they accused the authorities of not performing their duties under the Convention to “protect life effectively, and to ensure respect for their private family life, including their home.” Lastly, they complained that the State had not introduced relevant legislation nor taken measures to meet international commitments, urging them to act on targets set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Representative of the government, The Swiss Federal Office of Justice, stated, “Together with the authorities concerned, we will now analyse the extensive judgement and review what measures Switzerland will take in the future.”

Ruth Delbaere, legal campaigns director for activism network Avaaz, comments, “The Swiss ruling sets a crucial legally binding precedent serving as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures.”

Furthermore, India’s Supreme Court recently ruled that people have a right to be free from the impacts of climate change.

“It is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. This is perhaps because this right and the right to a clean environment are two sides of the same coin. As the havoc caused by climate change increases year-by-year, it becomes necessary to articulate this as a distinct right. It is recognised by Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life),” state the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra.

According to me, this sounds like great progress in human rights, especially indigenous, rural and climate-impacted people who are losing their homes due to incompetent governments and corrupt corporations.

Bittersweet win

While the successful win for the Swiss association and environment is commendable for progress in law and women’s power, all the while igniting a path for holding governments and polluters accountable for harmful impacts on the environment, it does raise some alarm bells.

To me, the most worrying is the fact that legal and governmental systems only work in favour of the environment when it concerns human rights, but not for the environment, natural world, or non-human animal rights in themselves.

A bittersweet taste lingers as the systems’ flaws are so plainly and openly laid, it is sad for me to learn of the system’s lack in stronger enforcement for a healthy and flourishing ecosystem, which is only of concern to authorities when its disruption impacts the human right to healthy life. 

The system has failed, yet it is a win for environmental law. Does the end justify the means? Should all arguments ultimately rely on human rights rather than natural entities’ rights? Is this the game we must play to have a chance at winning against climate destruction and animal abuse?

Will there ever be a day where human rights are just among other types of rights for other species and entities? 

Ultimately, must we also rely on a system based on rights, where they must rely on human interpretation and rationalisation to argue on behalf of the natural entity or non-human animal?

However, I understand that things need to get done, laws need to get passed, and people must be held accountable. 

Nevertheless, I believe that humans should pay attention to not making everything about them. They should pay attention to the life around them that also suffers in languages we cannot understand, even though we have the capacity to learn to empathise.

The court hears those that are able to gather up a collective voice, oftentimes dismissing it. Imagine the voices of birds, forests and oceans—what might they say or think about the court win?

Probably they—an imagined non-human entity—would be indifferent to the systems of law, there would be no need to care about the win or progress made in courts. They would not care that polluters would be held accountable by being fined. Maybe they would care if the polluter directly helped their migration, improved their habitat and prevented chemical spillage. 

To practise placing oneself out of our perceived idea of humanness, can open ways into other entities. We can never know what a tree might think of this case, but it can help us imagine another perspective, which may eventually displace the human ego, at least temporarily, and on occasions when it may be required.

In this shortly imagined scenario, I am already struck with alternative solutions: Why don’t legal punishments enforce the subject to directly mitigate their environmental negligence by making them, for instance, plant 10,000 trees over 5 years? Instead of a vague fine, why not make them finance the rehabilitation of displaced animals?

Written by Venya Patel