4 ms·

This is legitimately insane. You have a court, which was created in an attempt to give legal options to victims of crimes committed by nation state and which co

This is legitimately insane. You have a court, which was created in an attempt to give legal options to victims of crimes committed by nation state and which could not be heard elsewhere. And people are suing over whatever a tiny European state doesn't do to stop environmental harm. Which may or may not even effect the people who are suing at all. And these people are from the country on earth where the population has the greatest control over their government. Switzerland isn't some rogue state, the population has legal means to force the government to do essentially whatever they want. So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? It really must be dismaying to see how little anyone actually cares about the environment on a global challenge, for someone who cares about the environment. Instead we have people arguing literal nonsense in a court.

zmgsabst 3y ago
I agree, adding a few thoughts — Because it’s not about solving a serious challenge facing humanity — it’s about the social credit of virtue signaling: - Establishing consensus and working with stakeholders would be hard. - Whining to an unelected, transnational body to force your “benevolence” on your nation is easy. If people are concerned about the unrest in Europe (farmer protests; collapse of faith in institutions; rise of populists), or more broadly about delivering results on issues challenging humanity, this is counterproductive.
kadkadels 3y ago
You seem to be confused about how the Swiss legal system works, so let me clarify it for you: The government is bound by laws, constitutional principles, and institutional mechanisms that prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of minorities or violating international obligations. Of course the population can't force the goverment "to do whatever they want" and this is not how any of it works. >Which may or may not even effect the people who are suing at all. It's evident that the lawsuit does affect them since they reside in Switzerland and are therefore only able to hold Switzerland accountable. If they were to reside in Germany, France, or any other country, they would have the freedom to pursue legal action against those respective nations. This aspect was also the reason for the dismissal of the Portuguese case; the plaintiffs were suing countries other than Portugal. >You have a court, which was created in an attempt to give legal options to victims of crimes committed by nation state and which could not be heard elsewhere. It is common practice for decisions concerning human rights abuses by the Swiss Supreme Court to be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which serves as the ultimate authority in such matters. >It really must be dismaying to see how little anyone actually cares about the environment on a global challenge, for someone who cares about the environment. Instead we have people arguing literal nonsense in a court. They did what they could and took responsibility for what they could. Which is a lot more than other people do. >If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? To benchmark against India or China regarding pollution sets the standard at its lowest. If we continue this pattern, finger-pointing will never stop. It's important that we raise our standards and lead by example.
GuB-42 3y ago
> So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. Yes, but people have the right to sue the population itself. Usually the legal system comes with ranks, and if a higher rank rule contradicts a lower rank rule, the higher rank rule prevails. Usually the constitution is at the top, then come international treatises, laws, then contracts. So if a law has been voted by the people and it contradicts the constitution or a treaty that has been signed, people can complain. Imagine, say in the US, a state decides to pass a law reinstating slavery, and for some reason, there is a majority of supporters (because the would be slaves are a minority), and the law passes. Anyone can can then complain and have the law repealed even if it was accepted by the majority, because it contradicts the constitution. The constitution can be changed too, but the requirements are much more stringent than a simple majority.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Changing the constitution in Switzerland has a very low bar, I actually cant think of another country where it's easier.
hnbad 3y ago
> Switzerland isn't some rogue state, the population has legal means to force the government to do essentially whatever they want. So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. Well, no. Switzerland is not an anarchic commune, it's a representational democracy, just one that makes heavy use of referendums. But just like elections, referendums don't establish consent, they establish majority support. "The population" isn't a cohesive entity, even less so than "the government". If the government is failing to take action and there is no sufficient majority to "force it", that's not "the population" doing it, that's just the majority of the population not intervening (and that doesn't even get into the difference between "the population" and "all eligible voters"). By definition, the ECHR court is the right place to take this if the government refuses to take action and there is no democratic majority for this. If you think the ECHR only exists for "rogue states" that flay their own population in public or turn ethnic minorities into lampshades, that should be a learning opportunity for you to read up on human rights and the ECHR specifically. > If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? This is literally a textbook example of whataboutism but the answer is yes, they're all bad and there are certainly worse offenders than Switzerland. But unlike Switzerland, neither China nor India are signatories to the ECHR so they're irrelevant to this case.
- Rochus 3y ago
  > it's a representational democracy Switzerland is a direct democracy, not just a representative (i.e. indirect) democracy. In the present case the ECHR is obviously misused with very dubious arguments. The fact that the ECHR does not put a stop to such abuse will not exactly improve its acceptance among the Swiss voters.
  - myrion 3y ago
    No, Switzerland is at most a semi-direct democracy. We don't vote on every last decision the government takes, after all - we have a bicameral parliament and an executive branch for those! We just also have votations on a lot of things.
soco 3y ago
One of the big reasons so little gets done on the climate topic is exactly this attitude: let the others do something because they're bigger/worse/richer/whatever. And everybody waits for the everybody else, in a very mexican standoff. Now look, the Swiss did something, right? Which is much more than many others - including those you mentioned - currently do.

zmgsabst 3y ago

I agree, adding a few thoughts — Because it’s not about solving a serious challenge facing humanity — it’s about the social credit of virtue signaling: - Establishing consensus and working with stakeholders would be hard. - Whining to an unelected, transnational body to force your “benevolence” on your nation is easy. If people are concerned about the unrest in Europe (farmer protests; collapse of faith in institutions; rise of populists), or more broadly about delivering results on issues challenging humanity, this is counterproductive.

kadkadels 3y ago

You seem to be confused about how the Swiss legal system works, so let me clarify it for you: The government is bound by laws, constitutional principles, and institutional mechanisms that prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of minorities or violating international obligations. Of course the population can't force the goverment "to do whatever they want" and this is not how any of it works. >Which may or may not even effect the people who are suing at all. It's evident that the lawsuit does affect them since they reside in Switzerland and are therefore only able to hold Switzerland accountable. If they were to reside in Germany, France, or any other country, they would have the freedom to pursue legal action against those respective nations. This aspect was also the reason for the dismissal of the Portuguese case; the plaintiffs were suing countries other than Portugal. >You have a court, which was created in an attempt to give legal options to victims of crimes committed by nation state and which could not be heard elsewhere. It is common practice for decisions concerning human rights abuses by the Swiss Supreme Court to be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which serves as the ultimate authority in such matters. >It really must be dismaying to see how little anyone actually cares about the environment on a global challenge, for someone who cares about the environment. Instead we have people arguing literal nonsense in a court. They did what they could and took responsibility for what they could. Which is a lot more than other people do. >If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? To benchmark against India or China regarding pollution sets the standard at its lowest. If we continue this pattern, finger-pointing will never stop. It's important that we raise our standards and lead by example.

GuB-42 3y ago

> So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. Yes, but people have the right to sue the population itself. Usually the legal system comes with ranks, and if a higher rank rule contradicts a lower rank rule, the higher rank rule prevails. Usually the constitution is at the top, then come international treatises, laws, then contracts. So if a law has been voted by the people and it contradicts the constitution or a treaty that has been signed, people can complain. Imagine, say in the US, a state decides to pass a law reinstating slavery, and for some reason, there is a majority of supporters (because the would be slaves are a minority), and the law passes. Anyone can can then complain and have the law repealed even if it was accepted by the majority, because it contradicts the constitution. The constitution can be changed too, but the requirements are much more stringent than a simple majority.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
Changing the constitution in Switzerland has a very low bar, I actually cant think of another country where it's easier.

hnbad 3y ago

> Switzerland isn't some rogue state, the population has legal means to force the government to do essentially whatever they want. So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. Well, no. Switzerland is not an anarchic commune, it's a representational democracy, just one that makes heavy use of referendums. But just like elections, referendums don't establish consent, they establish majority support. "The population" isn't a cohesive entity, even less so than "the government". If the government is failing to take action and there is no sufficient majority to "force it", that's not "the population" doing it, that's just the majority of the population not intervening (and that doesn't even get into the difference between "the population" and "all eligible voters"). By definition, the ECHR court is the right place to take this if the government refuses to take action and there is no democratic majority for this. If you think the ECHR only exists for "rogue states" that flay their own population in public or turn ethnic minorities into lampshades, that should be a learning opportunity for you to read up on human rights and the ECHR specifically. > If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? This is literally a textbook example of whataboutism but the answer is yes, they're all bad and there are certainly worse offenders than Switzerland. But unlike Switzerland, neither China nor India are signatories to the ECHR so they're irrelevant to this case.

Rochus 3y ago
> it's a representational democracy Switzerland is a direct democracy, not just a representative (i.e. indirect) democracy. In the present case the ECHR is obviously misused with very dubious arguments. The fact that the ECHR does not put a stop to such abuse will not exactly improve its acceptance among the Swiss voters.
- myrion 3y ago
  No, Switzerland is at most a semi-direct democracy. We don't vote on every last decision the government takes, after all - we have a bicameral parliament and an executive branch for those! We just also have votations on a lot of things.

soco 3y ago

One of the big reasons so little gets done on the climate topic is exactly this attitude: let the others do something because they're bigger/worse/richer/whatever. And everybody waits for the everybody else, in a very mexican standoff. Now look, the Swiss did something, right? Which is much more than many others - including those you mentioned - currently do.