Amicus Brief on States’ Human Rights Obligations as Shaped by the Paris Agreement and Victim Status for Particular Groups like the Elderly in Climate Cases

This intervention addresses two questions raised by Swiss Senior Women v. Switzerland: whether older adults can qualify as victims under the European Convention on Human Rights in a climate case, and how the Paris Agreement informs states’ obligations to protect human rights from climate harm. (p. 1). The brief examines older adults’ exposure to heat, extreme weather, and disease; the European Court of Human Rights’ approach to victim status for individuals and organizations; and the relevance of the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals and “highest possible ambition” standard to states’ duties under the Convention. (pp. 1–10)

The brief argues that older adults face heightened risks from heatwaves, floods and other extreme weather, deteriorating air quality, and certain diseases. It points, for example, to reduced ability to regulate body temperature and to mobility or health conditions that can make emergencies harder to withstand. These differences matter to its argument about victim status. (pp. 1–3)

The submission argues that an older person may be a direct victim where a state’s alleged failure to regulate emissions has a sufficiently direct connection to harm they face. It also argues that a person may be a potential victim where convincing evidence shows a likelihood of a future violation affecting them personally. In both cases, victim status requires more than a general concern about climate change. (pp. 4–5)

The brief argues that widespread harm does not, by itself, prevent people who are particularly affected from bringing a claim. It also examines whether an association can qualify as a victim, arguing that an organization must show a sufficiently direct effect on its own interests. (pp. 5–6)

The submission argues that the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals and its requirement that countries pursue their “highest possible ambition” help clarify states’ duties under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It describes this as a duty of due diligence: states must set ambitious targets and take effective domestic measures in light of the risks and their capabilities. (pp. 7–8)

The brief calls for rapid, deep emissions reductions by 2030, backed by effective measures, and argues that states with greater capacity should reach net-zero emissions well before 2050. It also says states should assess mitigation across sectors and prevent domestic measures from merely shifting emissions to other countries. A distant net-zero target, the brief argues, cannot justify delaying action now. (pp. 8–9)

The brief is useful for lawyers, judges, advocates, and researchers working on climate litigation under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its discussion of victim status may help readers assess claims involving groups facing heightened climate risks, while its Paris Agreement analysis offers a framework for evaluating the ambition and implementation of state climate policies.