I think they have a general case that the future rights of younger generations should not be broken by the failure of older generations to reduce luxury consumption, but it’s not just about these 32 specified countries, and I doubt that lawyers and judges are the right ‘experts’ to decide this topic. Maybe it helps to broaden the community beyond scientists and slrpnks, but law mostly builds on precedent and the scale and duration of this problem is unprecedented.
To be clear this is an international court and its rulings are unfortunatly ignored in many cases. However it also happens to be the international court, for which it happens the least and it has a good reputation globally. So a strong precedent set by the European Court for Human Rights would set a strong precedent for European courts and work as a strong argument to bring governments into complying with the Paris Accord.
So the big win is that this can create a field day to sue European fossil fuel companies and the like.
I think they have a general case that the future rights of younger generations should not be broken by the failure of older generations to reduce luxury consumption, but it’s not just about these 32 specified countries, and I doubt that lawyers and judges are the right ‘experts’ to decide this topic. Maybe it helps to broaden the community beyond scientists and slrpnks, but law mostly builds on precedent and the scale and duration of this problem is unprecedented.
To be clear this is an international court and its rulings are unfortunatly ignored in many cases. However it also happens to be the international court, for which it happens the least and it has a good reputation globally. So a strong precedent set by the European Court for Human Rights would set a strong precedent for European courts and work as a strong argument to bring governments into complying with the Paris Accord.
So the big win is that this can create a field day to sue European fossil fuel companies and the like.