Scholarly debates on climate change law in general and climate change litigation more specifically and the recent LPE debates mutually enrich each other. Surprisingly, the interaction of those two fields of study – while evoked frequently – remains underdeveloped.
In her response to the post by Bernhard Wegener, who criticizes climate lawsuits as ineffective globules, Manuela Niehaus illustrates the effect of climate lawsuits. She argues that not everything that tastes sweet is just ineffective homeopathy.
Die Klima-Entscheidungen der Großen Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) sind wegweisend. Auf den ersten Blick ist jedoch nicht vollkommen klar, wie sie sich auf das nationale Klimarecht der Vertragsstaaten der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) auswirken werden. Haben die strategischen Klimaklagen den von ihnen erwünschten Durchbruch erzielt, der das nationale Klimarecht revolutionieren wird?
Manuela Niehaus verteidigt die menschenrechtsgestützte Klimarechtsprechung – insbesondere des EGMR – gegen meine Kritik. Es handele sich nicht um „Globuli für Umweltjuristen“, sondern um ein potentiell lebensrettendes Medikament, das – im Zusammenspiel mit anderen Mitteln – einen wesentlichen Beitrag zum Klimaschutz leisten könne. Das sehen sicher viele ähnlich und darum bin ich dankbar für Niehaus Argumente und für ihren sanften Spott. Ihr Spott trifft mich zu Recht, ihre Argumente aber überzeugen mich nur sehr teilweise.
In der Replik auf den Beitrag von Bernhard Wegener, der Klimaklagen als wirkungslose Globuli kritisiert, zeigt Manuela Niehaus die Wirkungsmechanismen von Klimaklagen auf. Sie argumentiert, dass nicht alles, was zuckersüß schmeckt, nur wirkungslose Homöopathie ist.
Sind Gerichte als Institutionen des einzelfallbezogenen Rechtsschutzes geeignete Einrichtungen zur Bewältigung der Klimakrise? Könnten sie die sicherlich notwendigen gesamtgesellschaftlichen und globalen Transformationsprozesse anleiten? Bernhard Wegener bezieht klar Stellung gegen die „zuckersüße Illusion von Climate Justice“.
A wind of change is sweeping in the last stronghold of European petrostates: Norway. The recent decision rendered on January 18, 2024, by the District Court of Oslo in the North Sea Fields Case may testify to the demise of what was once called the Norwegian paradox, referring to Norway’s dual role as a climate leader internationally while maintaining a significant reliance on fossil fuels domestically. Despite advocating for climate action on the global stage, Norway remains the largest per capita exporter of CO2 emissions, due to its substantial petroleum industry.
There is little doubt that climate change in all its facets is one of the most pressing global issues of our time. Increasingly, we see international and regional treaty bodies addressing it. Much has been written about ongoing procedures in front of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, other regional developments, such as the African Commission’s study on the impact of climate change or the request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have regrettably received less attention. As we have submitted an amicus curiae to the latter proceeding, we want to contribute to its prominence and present the core arguments of our intervention to the Court. In particular, we highlight the nexus between climate change and forced displacement from a complementary protection perspective.
On November 30, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a landmark decision in the climate case brought by “Klimaatzaak” (“climate case” in Dutch) against Belgian public authorities (the federal and the three regional governments). In this decision, the court found the federal authority and the Brussels and Flemish regions’ climate action to be in violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR and of their duty of care, and imposed a minimal GHG reduction target to be reached by Belgian authorities for the future. In their blogpost, Alice Briegleb and Antoine De Spiegeleir provide a clear overview of the case, exploring its previous stages and insisting on the continuing failures of the Belgian climate governance and its complex federal structure. We focus on our part on how the decision makes it clear that the climate justice movement is now confronted with the tension between the legally required and the ethically desirable parameters of climate effort distribution.
The ECtHR held a hearing in the case KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland. It is one of the first gender-based climate cases worldwide. The case offers novel perspectives on a range of issues. Crucially, it highlights new potential avenues for standing in human rights cases and pinpoints how age, health, gender, and climate change intersect.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters