But the democratic climate is changing. The change is driven by the issue of our time: climate change.
You may have missed the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) last week, but it is symptomatic of the blurring lines between lawmakers and law enforcers. In a landmark case, the ECHR ruled that Switzerland’s climate policy is inadequate and thus violates the human rights of its citizens.
The case was brought forward by a group of Swiss senior women, the “KlimaSeniorinnen” (female climate seniors). They contended that the country’s purportedly insufficient action on climate change infringes on their right to life and health.
The court sided with them, declaring that Switzerland’s measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s target of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
But the court did not stop at admonishing Switzerland. It went a step further, effectively prescribing how the country should conduct its climate policy. The judges laid out a set of principles that Switzerland – and by extension, all 46 member states of the Council of Europe – must now adhere to.
According to the ruling, states must set binding targets to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. They must also define clear pathways to meet these goals, and act swiftly and consistently to implement the necessary laws and regulations.
In essence, the court has thus established a high standard for what it considers adequate climate action under human rights law. That standard that applies not just to Switzerland, but to every country under the court’s jurisdiction.
At first glance, this might seem like a positive development. Yes, there is a climate problem, and if courts can compel governments to take more ambitious action, might that not be a good thing?
However, there is a fundamental issue at stake here. It goes to the heart of how democracies function.
In a democratic system, it is the elected representatives of the people who are tasked with making policy decisions. Politicians are accountable to their constituents, who can vote them out of office if they are unsatisfied with their policies. This accountability is the cornerstone of democratic governance.
Judges, on the other hand, are not elected. Their role is to interpret and apply the law, not to create it. When courts start dictating policy, they are overstepping their bounds and encroaching on the domain of the legislative and executive branches.
The consequences of judicial overreach are even more pronounced when it comes to supranational courts like the ECHR. The judges on this court are not even directly accountable to the governments of the countries they pass judgment on, let alone their voters. They are appointed through a process that is far removed from the democratic politics of individual nations.
Yet with this ruling, the ECHR is effectively legislating climate policy for 46 countries. It is telling democratically elected governments what to do. They are setting specific targets and timelines that they must meet. This is a significant incursion into the policy-making prerogative of national governments.
It sets a troubling precedent, suggesting that an unelected, unaccountable international body can override the will of national parliaments and voters. It is a circumvention of the democratic process, and one that could have major unintended consequences down the line.
Proponents of the ruling might argue that the severity of the climate crisis justifies this kind of judicial intervention. They might say that governments have been dragging their feet, and that the slow pace of political change necessitates a more forceful approach.
And yes, bold and urgent action may be needed to avert severe consequences. But does that mean we should be willing to compromise democratic principles? Is it a good idea to concentrate more power in the hands of unelected judges, even if they are acting with the best of intentions?
These are not easy questions to answer, but they merit serious consideration. Democracy is not perfect. Even so it remains the best approach to making collective decisions in a way that is fair, legitimate, and accountable. If societies chip away at democratic norms in the name of expediency, even for a cause as important as climate action, the foundations of our political system are imperilled.
Solving the climate crisis should not require judges and courts. If citizens are sufficiently concerned about the climate, they need to elect leaders who are committed to bold action – and hold them accountable if they fail to deliver. That requires robust public debates, not court proceedings.
Of course, this is not an easy task. Democracy often is not as straightforward as issuing a court ruling. Democratic decision-making can be messy, slow, and frustrating. But it is also the best way to establish legitimacy and ensure the durability of political decisions.
Once societies start to bypass democratic processes in the name of climate action, they set a worrying precedent. Today it might be climate policy that is at issue – but what will it be tomorrow? What other pressing challenges will be deemed too important to leave to the vagaries of democratic decision-making?
Human rights implications can be construed in any area of public policy, but that should not make these areas the playgrounds of high courts. Just imagine what legal rights could be construed in health policy from the right to life. Or what human rights might be taken to mean for the setting of benefit levels.
The Swiss climate case, for all its good intentions, raises profound questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping policy. It is a reminder that in the fight against climate change, we cannot lose sight of the democratic principles that underpin our societies.
Effective climate action and robust democracy need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, they should go hand in hand. The challenge is to find ways to accelerate progress on emissions reductions while also strengthening democratic institutions and processes.
Courts have an important role to play in interpreting and applying the law. But they cannot be a substitute for the hard work of democratic politics.
The ECHR’s ruling in the Swiss climate case is a wake-up call, not primarily about the urgency of the climate crisis, but about the fragility of democratic institutions.
The path to a sustainable future must run through the public square, not the courtroom.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
The case was brought forward by a group of Swiss senior women, the “KlimaSeniorinnen” (female climate seniors). They contended that the country’s purportedly insufficient action on climate change infringes on their right to life and health.
The court sided with them, declaring that Switzerland’s measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s target of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
But the court did not stop at admonishing Switzerland. It went a step further, effectively prescribing how the country should conduct its climate policy. The judges laid out a set of principles that Switzerland – and by extension, all 46 member states of the Council of Europe – must now adhere to.
According to the ruling, states must set binding targets to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. They must also define clear pathways to meet these goals, and act swiftly and consistently to implement the necessary laws and regulations.
In essence, the court has thus established a high standard for what it considers adequate climate action under human rights law. That standard that applies not just to Switzerland, but to every country under the court’s jurisdiction.
At first glance, this might seem like a positive development. Yes, there is a climate problem, and if courts can compel governments to take more ambitious action, might that not be a good thing?
However, there is a fundamental issue at stake here. It goes to the heart of how democracies function.
In a democratic system, it is the elected representatives of the people who are tasked with making policy decisions. Politicians are accountable to their constituents, who can vote them out of office if they are unsatisfied with their policies. This accountability is the cornerstone of democratic governance.
Judges, on the other hand, are not elected. Their role is to interpret and apply the law, not to create it. When courts start dictating policy, they are overstepping their bounds and encroaching on the domain of the legislative and executive branches.
The consequences of judicial overreach are even more pronounced when it comes to supranational courts like the ECHR. The judges on this court are not even directly accountable to the governments of the countries they pass judgment on, let alone their voters. They are appointed through a process that is far removed from the democratic politics of individual nations.
Yet with this ruling, the ECHR is effectively legislating climate policy for 46 countries. It is telling democratically elected governments what to do. They are setting specific targets and timelines that they must meet. This is a significant incursion into the policy-making prerogative of national governments.
It sets a troubling precedent, suggesting that an unelected, unaccountable international body can override the will of national parliaments and voters. It is a circumvention of the democratic process, and one that could have major unintended consequences down the line.
Proponents of the ruling might argue that the severity of the climate crisis justifies this kind of judicial intervention. They might say that governments have been dragging their feet, and that the slow pace of political change necessitates a more forceful approach.
And yes, bold and urgent action may be needed to avert severe consequences. But does that mean we should be willing to compromise democratic principles? Is it a good idea to concentrate more power in the hands of unelected judges, even if they are acting with the best of intentions?
These are not easy questions to answer, but they merit serious consideration. Democracy is not perfect. Even so it remains the best approach to making collective decisions in a way that is fair, legitimate, and accountable. If societies chip away at democratic norms in the name of expediency, even for a cause as important as climate action, the foundations of our political system are imperilled.
Solving the climate crisis should not require judges and courts. If citizens are sufficiently concerned about the climate, they need to elect leaders who are committed to bold action – and hold them accountable if they fail to deliver. That requires robust public debates, not court proceedings.
Of course, this is not an easy task. Democracy often is not as straightforward as issuing a court ruling. Democratic decision-making can be messy, slow, and frustrating. But it is also the best way to establish legitimacy and ensure the durability of political decisions.
Once societies start to bypass democratic processes in the name of climate action, they set a worrying precedent. Today it might be climate policy that is at issue – but what will it be tomorrow? What other pressing challenges will be deemed too important to leave to the vagaries of democratic decision-making?
Human rights implications can be construed in any area of public policy, but that should not make these areas the playgrounds of high courts. Just imagine what legal rights could be construed in health policy from the right to life. Or what human rights might be taken to mean for the setting of benefit levels.
The Swiss climate case, for all its good intentions, raises profound questions about the role of the judiciary in shaping policy. It is a reminder that in the fight against climate change, we cannot lose sight of the democratic principles that underpin our societies.
Effective climate action and robust democracy need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, they should go hand in hand. The challenge is to find ways to accelerate progress on emissions reductions while also strengthening democratic institutions and processes.
Courts have an important role to play in interpreting and applying the law. But they cannot be a substitute for the hard work of democratic politics.
The ECHR’s ruling in the Swiss climate case is a wake-up call, not primarily about the urgency of the climate crisis, but about the fragility of democratic institutions.
The path to a sustainable future must run through the public square, not the courtroom.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
6 comments:
Indeed it must, Oliver.
We, of all people, should well appreciate what an overreach by the judiciary (in the likes of their incorporation of tikanga into law - think MACA) and even by our politicians (acting without a public mandate when it came to Covid restrictions and vaccine mandates) can mean to our fundamental rights as citizens. We need to be vigilant.
The 2011 MACA law could be amended by Parliament in 2 days. This would
immediately end the meddling of the Supreme Court ( and others) in its interpretation.
NZF has promised this amendment will be made.
This matter is urgent.
Why is this amendment not happening?
Elderly people are in more danger from cols weather than hot weather. As they are most likely to be retired than can just stay inside with the windows open when there is a heat wave. Because of climate policies, electricity is much more expensive than it used to be so they cave trouble paying for their heating
You're right anon@3.36pm.
And now we have the Fast-track Approvals Bill (F-tAB) that the coalition are now pushing through with haste that recognises, inter alia, the abovementioned Court interpreted (until otherwise changed) MACA law and requires appointed Expert Panel's (EP) to have an understanding of tikanga, matauranga and, or course, the ubiquitous Treaty "principles" - and this despite all the election rhetoric about all being equal citizens in the eyes of the law, not to mention the issue as to the lack of any agreed definition of what those 'Treaty Principles' actually mean and yet here they go again mentioning them in legislation before defining them.
A quick reading of the F-tAB has all the indications of it being just another gravy train of "Maori consultation" and, in regards MACA, there are going to be some fun and games as to who gets on the EP representing the relevant Iwi - unless, of course, perhaps the judiciary make a new rule that under tikanga, the membership of the panel can be more than 4 persons – a little like an extension to their ‘shared exclusivity’ under their current MACA interpretation?
We are on a very slippery slope and our new coalition Government seems asleep at the wheel as to what will really be the undoing of our 'democratic' society.
This court (and other institutions) have passed judgement without verifying the claim at the heart of the proponents’ argument — that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of climate change.
The claim is nonsensical, as the IPCC itself has admitted. It acknowledges that human-caused CO2 is only 4% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. So how can all the efforts to reduce that 4% make any difference to the climate when the other 96% (which we cannot control) continues unabated?
The fact that judicial and other institutions are happy to bypass democracy to pursue an objective that cannot be achieved shows a lack of logical and critical thinking, and a willingness to swallow the latest CoolAid.
Often the judiciary step in because of the failure of democratic leaders to do anything, beyond the short-term. There are many plastic pollutants clogging our rivers and oceans and 'forever chemicals'contaminating our water supplies and politicians have demonstarted a complete inability to act effectively on these issues, along with many others. You said 'Effective climate action and robust democracy need not be mutually exclusive'- this is unrealistic! We will still be wringing our hands about these issues as we march towards destruction of human life on the earth.
Post a Comment