Too Big to Remedy? What Climate Cases Tell Us About the Remedial Role of Human Rights

Abstract As the European Court of Human Rights (Court) considered the human rights impacts of climate change for the first time, its initial climate cases issued an invitation to think beyond climate change, and to interrogate key aspects of how the Court deals with systemic or societal problems. While its ruling in KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland presented much-discussed innovations in terms of the Court’s treatment of the admissibility and merits of climate cases, and especially in terms of the victim status test, the ‘tail’ end of the Court’s violation judgment has not received sufficient attention. Here the Court had a particular opportunity to respond to the structural nature of climate change. Its deferential remedial findings relate to the Court’s understanding of reparation and its own role, which in turn shape its willingness to open its remedial toolbox. The present piece interrogates the remedial options available in climate cases, focusing particularly on the KlimaSeniorinnen case to re-examine the idea that some issues are simply too extensive or too complex to receive scrutiny – or a remedy – from a human rights institution such as the Court.