The European Court for Human Rights is deciding on this issue today.
3 different cases are being decided on today. All three (from seperate groups) accuse governments of not doing enough to curb the effects of climate change and that this is endangering their human rights.
What the court decides is binding for countries in the EU. And, obviously, this could have an impact on current policies.
I find it intriguing, not really because of the climate thing, but that an issue such as climate could be used to bolster human rights.
Say the court decides in favour of the accusers, does this not then open a door to wider cases, which could have the judiciary demanding political action (rather than politics deciding the judicial framework)?
For example: selling weapons to Israel, Russia or Ukraine. One could argue that this is a crime against humanity as well.
So, essentially, you can use the court system to direct policy, rather than the voting booth.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
I reckon in this case, that the court will be deciding if countries aren’t adhering to treaties (international law) or something. That I can see. If you sign up to a treaty, it is binding.
But I’m not sure if that’s what they are doing. Perhaps they are literally deciding on action vs human rights? And then I feel that it’s overstepping something.
What do you think?
3 different cases are being decided on today. All three (from seperate groups) accuse governments of not doing enough to curb the effects of climate change and that this is endangering their human rights.
What the court decides is binding for countries in the EU. And, obviously, this could have an impact on current policies.
I find it intriguing, not really because of the climate thing, but that an issue such as climate could be used to bolster human rights.
Say the court decides in favour of the accusers, does this not then open a door to wider cases, which could have the judiciary demanding political action (rather than politics deciding the judicial framework)?
For example: selling weapons to Israel, Russia or Ukraine. One could argue that this is a crime against humanity as well.
So, essentially, you can use the court system to direct policy, rather than the voting booth.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
I reckon in this case, that the court will be deciding if countries aren’t adhering to treaties (international law) or something. That I can see. If you sign up to a treaty, it is binding.
But I’m not sure if that’s what they are doing. Perhaps they are literally deciding on action vs human rights? And then I feel that it’s overstepping something.
What do you think?