Judicial dialogue in the age of climate change: The European court of human rights’ climate rulings as a roadmap

As rights-based climate litigation proliferates in domestic and international jurisdictions, landmark cases are creating argumentative patterns that can have far-reaching effects. One recent example is the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, which is already inspiring litigants, litigators and civil society actors mere months after it was issued. Given the relative novelty of climate litigation, and especially of cases based on human rights, the actors involved are particularly eager to learn from each other. This includes judicial responses, which are showing high levels of judicial dialogue and legal transplantation. However, judicial dialogue requires a contextualised and realistic understanding of the underlying leading cases. KlimaSeniorinnen, this article posits, is a valuable starting point for further engagement with the climate-related impacts of human rights, but it does not exhaust the full range of rights, vulnerabilities and obligations involved. This does not mean that the ruling cannot be a valuable roadmap for other decision-makers. In other words, the
judgment must be understood as a floor, and not a ceiling, for further engagement.