The problem here does not lie in the establishment or ratification of a court to handle human rights affairs but in the equation of 'climate policy' with ´human

The problem here does not lie in the establishment or ratification of a court to handle human rights affairs but in the equation of 'climate policy' with ´human rights'. Seen in this light many other issues can be portrayed as 'human rights', some of them far more directly than 'climate policy'. The right to self-defence is one such issue which could be taken up by an activist group to allow people to keep and bear arms for that purpose, something which is alien to most European countries but could be argued to become a necessity due to the inability of the justice system to provide an adequate level of protection from harm. Is there a human right of self-defence? If so what is to keep such a decision from being made even though the majority of political parties would never run on such a platform? Also, if such a decision were made would you see it in the same light as this one given that ____land democratically decided to put the ECHR in place? I prefer to keep the courts out of the political discourse other than in cases where politicos violate the law of the land in which case I want them to deal with those cases swiftly and decisively. Especially in Europe where we do not elect our judges and prosecutors and as such have no means to reign in activists within the justice department (which do exist, see e.g. 'Hilda' and 'Ruben' in Sweden [1,2]) I want there to be a clear separation between the two. [1] https://mrrs.se/ordf_blog/hilda-ruben-stridet-mot-grundlagen-11-kap-6-%C2%A7/ https://mrrs.se/ordf_blog/hilda-ruben-stridet-mot-grundlagen... [2] https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/om-advokatsamfundet/tidigare-projekt/hilda/ https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/om-advokatsamfundet/tidigare...