The Court rejected the Claimants’ third argument relating to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and the Human Rights Act (“HRA”), on the grounds that it was ‘too ambitious’ [263] and ‘does not accord with established principle’ [265].
Overall, the High Court found that the Government’s net zero strategy does not meet Government obligations under the CCA. The Government now has eight months to review its climate strategy to include an adequate, quantified account of how its policies will meet climate targets, based on a realistic assessment. The strategy must then be presented to Parliament for scrutiny.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- This case shows promise for future litigation, as a national government was held legally accountable for inadequate climate policies. These inadequate climate policies, whilst not immediately felt in the defendant’s jurisdiction, would exacerbate climate change across the globe and, thus, contribute to climate migration.
- This case emphasises the important role to be played by nonprofit and charitable organisations in holding governments accountable for inadequate climate policies, with collaborative, innovative approaches having the capacity to catalyse tangible change. Through challenging the Government on its inadequate net-zero strategy, ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth and Good Law Project are indirectly advocating for the rights of climate migrants, by calling out breaches of the CCA that contribute to a changing climate that impacts individuals, families and communities across the globe.
Pages: 1 2