With Duarte Agostinho and others v. Portugal and 32 others, climate change goes to court - - Istituto Analisi Relazioni Internazionali

With Duarte Agostinho and others v. Portugal and 32 others, climate change goes to court -

The climate change lawsuit filed by six young Portuguese guys against 33 governments for “inaction” on climate change has begun before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg last autumn. This is the first “climate change” case to be filed with the European Court of Human Rights and the largest one out of the three cases on this topic that the Court is currently considering. A win in this landmark case could catalyze a significant shift in global climate policy, legal accountability for climate action, and international relations.

“ Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others” is the landmark case brought by six young people from Portugal against 33 European governments, including all 27 European Union member states, the UK, Turkey, Russia, and Norway. The plaintiffs, aged between 11 and 24, argue that the inaction of these governments on climate change violates their human rights — specifically the rights to life, family life, and privacy, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights — as well as that, as young people, they stand to experience the worst effects of the climate crisis.

The six young activist’s motivation stems from the devastating wildfires that, in 2017, killed more than 100 people and destroyed 20,000 hectares of forest in the Leira region of Portugal. Although not directly involved in that disaster, Sofia Oliveira felt it was “now or never to raise our voices” and the day of the first hearing the plaintiffs, supported by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), highlighted the personal impacts they’ve already experienced because of extreme temperatures in Portugal, including restrictions on their ability to exercise and sleep due to extreme heat, the development of allergies and respiratory conditions, and the broader consequences that eco-anxiety causes on their generation.

This lawsuit is part of a growing trend of climate litigation, where individuals and groups are increasingly turning to Court to hold governments and corporations accountable for climate change. Such lawsuits seek not only to enforce existing commitments under international agreements like the Paris Agreement but also to prompt more ambitious action to address the urgent challenge of climate change​​​​​​.

What makes this case unique in its genre is that is emphasizes the global nature of climate change, challenging the notion that responsibility lies solely within national borders. It argues for a broader interpretation of jurisdiction, suggesting that the harmful effects of climate change, exacerbated by the actions (or inactions) of these countries, do not respect political boundaries. By doing so, this lawsuit aims to challenge traditional legal principles and seeks to expand the Court’s understanding of extraterritorial jurisdiction​​​​. Indeed, previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights say countries are responsible for the human rights of people outside its borders only in “exceptional cases”.

While the verdict in this case may take up to 18 months, the Court’s decision in 2020 to expedite the proceedings may be encouraging and it’s reasonable to believe that the implications, if successful, apart from creating legally-binding consequences for the governments involved, are going to be multiple.

First of all, a victory for the plaintiffs would set a legal precedent, making it the first case where a Court of such prominence mandates specific climate action from multiple governments. In doing this, it could strengthen arguments in similar climate cases against other governments, as stated by Kate Higham, Policy Fellow at the Grantham Institute, London School of Economics. Thus, the expansion of climate litigation could pressure governments and, potentially, private entities to reassess their environmental policies and commitments to avoid legal risks because, although the lawsuit directly involves just 33 European governments, a victory for the plaintiffs could have ripple effects worldwide, influencing also non-defendant countries to preemptively strengthen their climate policies in order to avoid similar legal challenges.

Second of all, governments of the defendant countries might be legally compelled to accelerate their CO2 emissions reduction efforts, potentially leading to more aggressive climate policies, renewable energy investments, and a faster transition away from fossil fuels. This could shift the geopolitical landscape, particularly in energy markets, as countries would ramp up efforts to achieve energy independence through sustainable means and reduce reliance on fossil fuel-producing nations.

Third of all, rapid policy shifts to cut emissions could have profound economic implications, both positive and negative. While there may be increased investment in green technologies and sustainable development, certain industries, particularly those heavily reliant on fossil fuels, could face economic challenges. This could affect global economic dynamics, trade patterns, and even the geopolitical influence of countries depending on how they adapt to and capitalize on the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Last but not least, the case underscores the transboundary nature of climate change, challenging the notion of national borders in addressing global environmental crises. A victory might necessitate enhanced international cooperation, as countries would be forced to work together to meet Court-mandated emissions targets. This is likely to lead to new or strengthened multilateral agreements and cooperation frameworks, potentially reshaping alliances and international relations.