https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-11244-6_9
*Authors: *Epaminondas Bellos https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaf068 Published: *11 January 2026* *Abstract* The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland represents a critical juncture in climate litigation. By endorsing a national carbon budget in combination with an extraterritorial, consumption-based approach to state responsibility, while sidestepping the contentious issues of carbon offsets and removals, I show how the Court has created an implementation paradox. The judgment cannot be implemented in a meaningful way in a context where Switzerland’s fair-share carbon budget is already exhausted and negative, and where it is almost exhausted if we adopt a per capita approach. A negative fair-share carbon budget would entail an ‘emergency brake’, which no state can afford. A still remaining positive per capita carbon budget would require unprecedented emission reduction rates far beyond the temporality of economic lockdowns imposed during COVID-19. The judgment thus highlights the limits of climate litigation against states at a time of exhausted carbon budgets and an over-reliance on questionable carbon offsets and highly speculative carbon removal promises. *Source: Springer Nature Link* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh985kEnZ6BH8Vece9sm3YFYZkp9KSoR4oXkV-bqZs6zz2g%40mail.gmail.com.
