Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR or the Court) approach to international environmental instruments in its first climate change cases, specifically in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland . It focuses on the ECtHR’s use of systemic integration and its living instrument doctrine to incorporate international environmental instruments, including the Paris Agreement, Aarhus Convention, and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, into its interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While respecting states’ discretion, the ECtHR links standing before the Court with Aarhus Convention criteria, and climate change mitigation obligations to ECHR rights, incorporating the Paris Agreements’ general goals like temperature limitation and greenhouse gas neutrality. However, the Court stops short of directly enforcing equity principles embedded in international environmental law. This article argues that the ECtHR’s balanced approach strengthens ECHR protections against climate harm, without overstepping its mandate into the domain of a quasi-environmental court.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linnéa Nordlander (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: