Abstract
On 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights issued three landmark climate rulings. With these rulings, the Court established that it is willing to engage with climate cases, and that States have human rights obligations to regulate and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. However, these rulings took a restrictive approach to the spatial scope of States’ obligations. In particular, in the Duarte Agostinho decision, the Court found that States did not have extraterritorial obligations linked to the impacts of their emissions outside their borders. The present article argues that, in doing so, the ruling highlights longstanding problems with the Court’s restrictive, control-based and unprincipled approach to jurisdiction.
Heri, Corina