FROM THE EMERGENCY OF THE PANDEMIC TO THE NORMALITY OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS: STATE OF PLAY OF AN IMAGINARY CLIMATE STATE OF EMERGENCY

Abstract

This article examines the legal challenges posed by the climate crisis, contrasting them with the legal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. While the pandemic prompted the declaration of formal states of health emergency and swift adoption of exceptional measures, often restricting fundamental rights, the climate emergency—despite widespread political and media recognition—lacks a comparable legal framework of exception. Instead, the emergency of the climate crisis is increasingly expressed through climate litigation. Civil society and NGOs are turning to courts to hold governments accountable for inaction. A key strategy in these cases is the invocation of fundamental rights, particularly the rights to life (Article 2 ECHR) and to private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). This “climatisation” of rights translates scientific concerns into legal claims and helps personalize the crisis through alleged rights violations. Yet courts remain reluctant to declare a formal “state of climate emergency.” The article delves into the comparison between the two crises revealing a persistent gap between emergency rhetoric and concrete legal action. It stresses that while the pandemic demonstrated how swiftly exceptional legal tools can be deployed, climate action has largely depended on judicial creativity, especially through rights based arguments.