In November 2022, we held an event with Alex, a Barricade volunteer, climate justice warrior and coincidentally also a law student with a profound interest in making state level actors uncomfortable. Together with four other young people aged 18 to 31, he decided to go to court against industrialised nations complying with the European Energy Charter, which is a state-level treaty that is fundamentally at odds with protecting the climate according to the IPCC. Alex was nice enough to write up the tale for you to read it below.
Taking the ECT to a human rights court
Reflecting on George Monbiot’s words, the world’s financially wealthiest have come to shape the way the world operates. Money has indeed made the world turn around, with low levels of accountability for the world´s richest and high levels of greed. The reflection of the relentless exploitation of the world’s resources for the sake of money and power has manifested in a dangerous climate crisis.
Among all the different market sectors that the wealthiest have penetrated to generate profit, is the energy sector. A world with energy has definitely offered wonderful opportunities. Nevertheless, it is the combustion of polluting fossil fuels for energy that has triggered the immense climate crisis which is now close to causing irreversible damage to the Earth’s life processes. The IPCC has clearly stated that fossil fuels need to be phased out “as fast as humanly possible”. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy has gained mainstream attention in the Global North. But there is a very sinister law holding states behind in phasing out fossil fuels, for which not much is known.
When the West attempted to generate profit from the post-Soviet economies, a treaty was signed to ensure that energy investors would have a safe and stable investment environment. This is how the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) was created in 1994. Among its provisions, it includes that energy investors can litigate in private arbitration procedures against states which decide to phase out fossil fuels.
Lawsuits have therefore been popping up from energy companies invoking the ECT. German energy company RWE is currently suing the Dutch government for 2 billion following the latter’s announcements to phase out fossil fuels. UK Oil Company Rockhopper won more than 200 million euros from the Italian government, following the latter’s ban on drilling. Such lawsuits have already occurred in 12 European states and operate within a very non-transparent framework. The sums allocated to fossil fuel companies are not even necessarily made public. This is taxpayer money that should be allocated to fight climate change, instead of paying the polluters.
Membership in the ECT could result in claims from fossil fuel companies which amount up to 1.3 trillion (!) by 2050, creating a massive impediment to addressing climate change.
On June 21 2022, five European young people, aged between 18 and 31 at the time decided to litigate against the member states that have been compliant with the provisions of the ECT. These include: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. We are claiming that because of the barriers the ECT creates for phasing out fossil fuels, there is a delay in mitigating climate change. This delay is violating our right to life and right to privacy & family life (Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR). All five of us have experienced extreme weather events, the frequency of which is increasing because of climate change. Julia from Germany, Damien from Belgium and Marion from Switzerland witnessed devastating floods, Maya from St Martin a deadly hurricane, and I experienced devastating forest fires in Greece.
The European Court of Human Rights is currently addressing its first climate claims, brought by Portuguese youth, a group of Swiss elderly people and a former French mayor. Its judgement is impatiently awaited by many people who are hoping to hear that climate change inaction constitutes a violation of the right to life. Such a judgement would constitute a landmark case and can open the way for many further claims against climate inaction based on human rights. It would also give a lot of hope for the Court finding a violation of human rights in our case. We are currently still waiting to hear whether it is admissible – fingers crossed.
Started with George Monbiot, so ending too: “Or this could be the moment when we begin to see ourselves, once more, as governed by biology and physics, and dependent on a habitable planet. Never again should we listen to the liars and the deniers. Never again should we allow a comforting falsehood to trounce a painful truth. No longer can we afford to be dominated by those who put money ahead of life.”
Further links:
Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2R12bqsofeGD4y8nvREc0O?utm_medium=share&utm_source=linktree