SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
european court of human rights
European Court of Human Rights Delivers 'Quantum Leap for Climate Accountability'
"Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue," said one campaigner.
Oct 28, 2025
Although the European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday sided with the Norwegian government over six young adults and a pair of climate groups, the plaintiffs still welcomed the tribunal's ruling as "a major step forward," in the words of Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway.
The case stems from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy granting 10 exploration licenses to 13 companies for fossil fuel production in the Arctic Barents Sea in 2016. The plaintiffs argued that doing so violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the right to respect for private and family life.
The court unanimously held that "there had been no violation" of Article 8, but it also affirmed that the government must conduct a full environmental impact assessment, including greenhouse gas emissions from combustion, for any new petroleum production.
"It's a relief to see the court recognize what science has told us for years—that new oil and gas fields threaten our most basic human rights," Pleym said in a statement. "Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue."
Young Friends of the Earth Norway, which sued alongside Greenpeace and the six individuals, also praised the ruling as progress.
"This decision is a quantum leap for climate accountability," said the group's leader, Sigrid Hoddevik Losnegård. "The government can no longer continue its oil and gas policy as if climate change doesn't exist. This judgment will have ripple effects far beyond Norway."
I can think of at least seven ways fossil fuel producers could wiggle out of this, but still: holy shit this is huge.
[image or embed]
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@doctorvive.bsky.social) October 28, 2025 at 7:17 AM
The plaintiffs noted in a joint statement that the ruling "builds on" recent decisions from the International Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The ICJ said in a landmark advisory opinion in July that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency. At the time, Danilo Garrido, legal counsel at Greenpeace International, hailed the development as "the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level."
That decision came roughly a year after the UK's top court ruled that Surrey authorities' approval of the Horse Hill drilling project "was unlawful" because they didn't consider "emissions that will occur when the oil produced is burnt as fuel," as required by law. Friends of the Earth UK called the ruling "a heavy blow for the fossil fuel industry" that could impact other projects.
The European court's Tuesday decision came less than two weeks away from the start of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil. In preparation for COP30, the UN on Tuesday released a report warning that governments' climate plans would reduce fossil fuel emissions by just 10% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
As Oil Change International pointed out in a June report, Norway and three other wealthy nations—Australia, Canada, and the United States—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade. This month, the group commissioned a poll that found a majority of Norwegians believe their country should either stop exploring for new oil and gas or slow down the pace.
"The data show that Norwegians increasingly want political leadership that aligns the country's oil policy with its climate goals," Oil Change's North Sea campaign manager, Silje Lundberg, said Monday. "People are calling time on endless oil expansion—it's the government that's stuck in the past. The public clearly wants a plan to phase down oil and gas and deliver real climate leadership, not more empty talk from ministers protecting the industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Betrayal': Women Elders Rip Swiss Lawmakers' Rejection of Landmark Climate Ruling
"The declaration is an attempt to continue to prevent human rights climate protection for political reasons, rather than recognizing that climate change is a scientific reality that affects everyone," said Greenpeace Switzerland.
Jun 13, 2024
Swiss women elders who recently won a landmark climate case said that they feel betrayed by their federal lawmakers, who voted Wednesday to disregard the court ruling.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in April that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to heed scientists' climate warnings and swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
However, on Wednesday the National Council—Switzerland's lower legislative chamber—voted 111-72 to essentially ignore the court's decision, which some lawmakers condemned as judicial overreach. This followed a 31-11 vote by the Council of States, the upper legislative chamber, on a similar measure earlier this month.
"Climate and health are intrinsically linked; good health and a safe climate go hand in hand."
"We are appalled by this decision which feels like both a betrayal of older women but is also out of step with humankind's collective responsibility to tackle climate change for the benefits of vulnerable groups and the future of all humankind," said Pia Hollenstein, a retired nurse and member of KlimaSeniorinnen, the group of women ages 64 and older who sued their government for failing to take adequate action to stop the planet from heating 1.5°C, the more ambitious target of the Paris agreement.
"As a nurse, I have seen how climate and health are intrinsically linked; good health and a safe climate go hand in hand," she added.
Responding to Wednesday's vote, Greenpeace Switzerland said that "the declaration is an attempt to continue to prevent human rights climate protection for political reasons, rather than recognizing that climate change is a scientific reality that affects everyone."
Switzerland's Alpine climate is particularly vulnerable the effects of global heating, which is mainly caused by burning fossil fuels. Studies have shown that the country's glaciers—a key water source for millions of Europeans—could disappear by the end of the century if warming isn't curbed.
At least one lawmaker who voted to flout the ECtHR ruling attacked KlimaSeniorinnen members. Jean-Luc Addor of the right-wing Swiss People's Party dismissed the activists as "just a bunch of... 'boomeuses',"—or female Baby Boomers—"who are trying to deny our children the living conditions they have enjoyed all their lives."
However, Véronique Boillet, a member of the Swiss Human Rights Institute and a law professor at the University of Lausanne, said in a statement: "The binding nature of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights is the heart of the European human rights system. It is the element that makes this system unique and a model worldwide."
"It is not for the Swiss Parliament to decide when a judgment has been implemented and when further measures are necessary," she continued. "It is normal that courts set certain objectives, as the ECtHR did for Swiss politics. It is also a sign of a functioning system of checks and balances."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular