The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue—it is a fight to protect fundamental human rights. In the article “Climate Crisis & Human Rights: When Justice Takes a Stand,” published in Huffington Post Greece, The Green Tank’s Communications Officer, Maria-Christina Doulami, examines how the impacts of climate change are increasingly reaching the courtroom.
From Switzerland, Germany, and the Andes to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, citizens and organizations are turning to the law to demand a safe future—not as a privilege, but as a right.
However, responsibility cannot fall solely on the courts. Governments and corporations bear the greatest share of the crisis and must take immediate and meaningful action.
The article highlights how recent court decisions in Europe and beyond are linking human rights with climate justice, setting new legal and ethical standards.
Read the full article [in Greek], which was published on www.huffingtonpost.gr on September 12, 2025, here.
English version below:
Climate Crisis and Human Rights: When Justice Takes a Stand
Addressing the climate crisis cannot rely solely on the courts or the persistence of citizens. The real responsibility lies with those who shape policies and make decisions.
By Maria-Christina Doulami, Communications Associate, The Green Tank
In a world where natural disasters are becoming increasingly frequent and rising temperatures threaten societies, economies, and human life itself, the climate crisis is not merely an environmental issue—it is an existential threat. It touches the core of human dignity, security, and life. It concerns all of us, regardless of nationality, race, or social class—creating both rights and obligations toward future generations. We are all part of the problem, and we are all called to be part of the solution.
The Environment as a Human Right
In Europe, environmental protection is no longer an abstract policy goal; it is a constitutionally recognized right. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 37) and the Treaties themselves (Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union & Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) require environmental considerations to be integrated into all Union policies. Within this framework, the green transition—with the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 and at least a 55% reduction in net emissions by 2030—is not merely a strategic choice but a legal and moral obligation, also stemming from international commitments such as the Paris Agreement.
Justice as a Guardian of the Environment
Today, courts are increasingly called upon to uphold these rights.
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous landmark advisory opinion, recognizing that states have a legal obligation to protect both the environment and human rights against climate change. It described the crisis as an “existential threat” and emphasized that a state’s failure to take measures to curb emissions may constitute an “internationally wrongful act.” The court also stressed that governments must exercise “due diligence” not only nationally but also internationally, regulating private polluters as well.
In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has already recognized that states must ensure citizens’ rights to a healthy life and environment in the face of climate change. Cases from Switzerland, France, and Portugal have shown that state inaction or inadequate action constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to life, health, and personal security.
In Germany, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2021 that the then-existing Climate Protection Act disproportionately shifted the burden of action onto future generations, violating their rights. This decision compelled the government to revise the law and set stricter, faster emission reduction targets.
Similarly, in Italy, a court in the Lazio region ordered the Meloni government to upgrade the national climate plan, ruling it insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement targets—following legal actions by organizations such as Greenpeace and ReCommon.
In other words, states cannot simply enact laws to tackle the climate crisis—they must implement substantive, evidence-based, and transparent measures grounded in scientific findings, public participation, and the rights of current and future generations. When states and lawmakers fail to adopt or enforce necessary policies, resorting to the courts becomes the last line of defense and the only avenue for citizens and organizations seeking the obvious: a safe environment.
From the Andes to Germany: The Power of One Person
One of the most emblematic cases is that of Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a farmer from Peru who sued the German energy giant RWE. In 2015, Lliuya requested that the company contribute a small fraction (€17,000) toward flood protection measures in his town, arguing that RWE’s emissions (around 0.47% of historical global emissions) accelerated glacier melt and increased flood risk.
Although the Hamm Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the case in 2025 due to lack of immediate danger, it acknowledged that private companies can, depending on their share of emissions, be held liable for cross-border climate damage.
This case laid the groundwork for recognizing the proportional responsibility of major polluters and the possibility of linking scientific data to concrete damages in civil courts, inspiring similar cases across Europe. Even in defeat, it paved the way for future claims by communities affected by climate change, establishing both legal and moral precedents for the accountability of major emitters.
Already, the case is inspiring similar lawsuits across Europe, such as those against TotalEnergies in Belgium and Holcim in Switzerland. It shows that even the smallest voices—a single farmer in the Andes standing up to an industrial giant—can influence international law and establish accountability for those exacerbating the climate crisis.
The Future: Justice as an Ally of Sustainability
From the Netherlands (Urgenda case) to Switzerland (KlimaSeniorinnen), more and more citizens, NGOs, and communities are turning to justice to compel states and businesses to take climate action. These cases do more than change laws—they change the very way we understand human rights, closely linking them to the environment and sustainability. They lay the foundations for a new legal culture, where climate justice becomes a natural extension of human rights. It is a right to survival and a moral obligation toward future generations.
Judicial activism highlights growing citizen pressure for meaningful climate action. And justice—national, European, and international—demonstrates that it can serve as a counterweight to government inaction.
However, addressing the climate crisis cannot rely solely on courts or citizen persistence. The real responsibility lies with those who shape policies and make decisions: lawmakers, states, and polluting corporations, who bear the greatest share of the crisis. They must align policies with scientific warnings and societal needs—not through declarations, but through immediate, substantive action. Climate justice is no longer an abstract legal requirement—it is a political duty and a moral imperative. Not for the future. For now.
