法律翻译 | 一种基于权利的气候诉讼新类型：欧洲人权法院对《能源宪章条约》提出挑战

（图片来源于网络）

In the last couple of years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has become a hotspot for rights-based climate change litigation. At the time of writing, seven cases are pending before the Court, with applicants seeking to challenge various aspects of domestic climate change laws and policies in the various respondent states, arguing that they violate their human rights protected by the Convention. On the 21st of June 2022, news broke that yet another case would be lodged before the Court. The case, however, is distinct from the others, in the sense that it targets state membership in an international agreement, namely the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), on the grounds that it unjustly protects fossil fuel investors. The case (the ‘ECT case’) is the first before the Court to draw links between human rights, investment law, and climate change. This post seeks to situate such a claim in the context of cases currently pending before the ECtHR and highlights the challenges that applicants may come to face in their efforts.

在过去几年里，欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)已成为基于权利的气候变化诉讼的热点。在撰写本文时，有七起案件正有待法院审理，申请人试图挑战各被诉国国内气候变化法律和政策的诸多方面，并主张这些法律和政策侵犯了《欧洲人权公约》所保护的人权。2022年6月21日，有消息称又有一起案件将提交给法院。然而，本案与其他案件不同在于其针对的是一项国际协议（即《能源宪章条约》（ECT））的成员国。理由是该协议不公正地保护了化石燃料投资者。本案（“ECT”案）是法院受理的第一个在人权、投资法和气候变化之间建立联系的案件。本文试图将此类诉讼主张置于欧洲人权法院目前待审案件的背景之下，并强调申请人在其努力中可能面临的挑战。

Although the official application has yet to be made public, The Guardian’s article introducing the case indicates that the applicants, five individuals between the ages of 17 and 31 who have experienced extreme weather events, are bringing a claim against twelve high contracting parties to the ECHR (see also Le Monde’s article). The states have reportedly been selected on the basis that these ‘countries are home to companies that have been active users of the ECT.’ Similarly to many of the other climate change claims brought before the Court, the applicants allege violations of their rights to life and to private and family life, under articles 2 and 8 of the Convention respectively.

虽然正式申请尚未公开，但《卫报》介绍此案的文章中指出，申请人是5名年龄在17至31岁、经历过极端天气事件的个人，他们正在向ECtHR提出针对12个缔约国的诉讼主张（另见《世界报》的文章）。据报道，这些国家被选中是基于“这些国家的公司一直是ECT的活跃用户。” 与向法院提出的许多其他气候变化诉讼类似，申请人分别根据《公约》第2条和第8条声称他们的生命权以及私人和家庭生活权受到侵犯。

While the exact construct of the applicants arguments remains unknown at the time of writing, the framing of the claim against the ECT is novel. Of the cases pending before the Court, most are ‘systemic mitigation’ claims, meaning that ‘they challenge the overall effort of a State or its organs … to mitigate dangerous climate change, as measured by the pace and extent of its [GHG] reduction’ (Lucy Maxwell and others, 2022). This includes the two cases that the Court has relinquished to the Grand Chamber, namely KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland and Carême v France. The strategy resembles the one seen domestically in multiple jurisdictions, for instance through the landmark Urgenda v Netherlands judgment from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in 2019, as well as the 2021 judgment from the German Constitutional Court, Neubauer et al v Germany.

尽管在撰写本文时，申请人论点的确切结构仍然未知，但其针对ECT的诉讼主张框架是新颖的。在法院待审的案件中，大多数是“系统性减排”诉讼主张，这意味着“他们挑战了一个国家或其机构……以[温室气体]减少的速度和程度来衡量其缓解危险气候变化的整体努力（Lucy Maxwell等，2022年）。这包括法院已移交给大法庭的两个案件，即克利马·塞尼奥林宁(KlimaSeniorinnen)诉瑞士案和卡雷梅（Carême）诉法国案。该策略类似于国内多个司法管辖区的策略，例如，2019年荷兰最高法院里程碑式的Urgenda诉荷兰案的判决，以及2021年德国宪法法院Neubauer等人诉德国案的判决。

To date, the outlier has been Greenpeace Nordic and others v Norway, where applicants are seeking to challenge licensing of oil and gas exploration in the Barents Sea. The case follows a different line of argument than the systemic mitigation cases, challenging a specific type of GHG-intensive project, as opposed to economy-wide GHG reductions.

迄今为止，北欧绿色和平组织和其他组织诉挪威案是一个例外，其申请人试图挑战巴伦支海的石油和天然气勘探许可。该案采用了与“系统性减排”案不同的论证思路，挑战的是特定类型的温室气体密集型项目，而不是全经济范围的温室气体减排。

（图片来源于网络）

With the filing of the ECT case, a second outlier has materialized. Distinctly from the other cases, the case appears to rely to a greater extent on materialized climate change impacts than other cases, where claims are typically made about preventing projected impacts. For example, arguments are made concerning the heightened risk of increasingly frequent and intense extreme events, like heatwaves and forest fires (see eg Duarte Agostinho and others v Portugal and 32 other states). Arguments based on impacts that have already transpired as opposed to projected ones may alleviate burdens of proving victim status, as previously discussed by Evelyne Schmid. Indeed, and although the specific events complained of remain unknown as of yet, it is noteworthy that attribution scientists have been able to conclude that the 2021 floods in Western Europe, as well as the 2017 wildfires in Spain and Portugal, were made more likely due to climate change.

随着ECT案件的提交，第二个例外已经出现。与其他案件不同的是，该案与其他案件相比似乎更大程度上依赖于具体的气候变化影响，而其他诉讼案件通常是就预防预测的影响提出主张。例如，关于热浪和森林火灾等日益频繁和剧烈的极端事件的风险增加的论点(参见Duarte Agostinho等人诉葡萄牙和其他32个国家案)。正如伊芙琳·施密德（Evelyne Schmid）之前所讨论的那样，基于已经发生的影响而不是预测的影响的论点可能会减轻证明受害者身份的负担。。事实上，尽管被起诉的具体事件至今仍不为人知，但值得注意的是，归因科学家已经能够得出结论，即2021年西欧的洪水以及2017年西班牙和葡萄牙的野火更有可能是气候变化所致。

A second, and perhaps even more notable point of distinction, is that in contrast with the other pending claims, the claim specifically targets membership of an international treaty, seeking to draw a link between legal protection of fossil fuel investors and harms stemming from extreme events like floods, forest fires and hurricanes. While litigation on the basis of an international treaty of this nature is novel before the Court, rights-based claims arguing for a need for legislative change to safeguard human rights in the context of climate change impacts are not. In that sense, the ECT case would build on a ‘classic strategy in human rights based environmental litigation’ (Savaresi and Setzer, 2022) in a novel way. However, drawing the link between the manifested impacts and state membership of the ECT will not be straightforward. 

第二个，也许是更值得注意的区别点在于，与其他待审诉讼主张相比，该诉讼主张特别针对国际条约的成员国，寻求在化石燃料投资者的法律保护与洪水、森林火灾和飓风等极端事件所造成的伤害之间建立联系。虽然基于这种性质的国际条约诉讼在法院面前是新颖的，但提出基于权利的诉讼，并主张在气候变化影响的背景下需要改变立法以保障人权则不是。从这个意义上说，ECT案件将以一种新颖的方式建立在“基于人权的环境诉讼的经典策略之上”（Savaresi及Setzer，2022）。然而，在明显的影响和ECT成员国之间建立联系并非易事。

Beyond the hurdles common to rights-based climate change claims, such as establishing victim status, exhausting domestic remedies, and issues of extraterritoriality, on which much has already been written (see for example this post by Ole W. Pedersen), litigation on the basis of investment law may bring with it its own set of challenges. While it will only be possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of the potential of the claim once this will be made public, at least three issues can already be identified.

除了基于权利的气候变化诉讼所面临的常见障碍，如确定受害者地位、穷尽国内救济手段和治外法权问题，关于这些问题已有诸多论述（例如参见Ole W. Pedersen的这篇文章），基于投资法的诉讼可能会带来自己的一系列挑战。虽然只有公开之后才有可能对诉讼主张的潜力进行全面评估，但目前至少有三个问题可以确定。

The first concerns the possibility for the Court to render a judgment that affects the participation of ECHR parties in other international conventions. While the Court can, and often does, find that the legal framework applicable in a given state is incompatible with its obligations under the Convention, the amendment of specific domestic law would likely fall within the scope of the states’ margin of appreciation, especially when the causal link between impacts and the law in question is not direct. Indeed, the ratification of, as well as the withdrawal from, international treaties such as the ECT is typically a prerogative of national legislators. Hence, should the claim be upheld, it appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to order respondent states to take action as specific as withdrawing from the ECT, although the Court could require states to amend their domestic legal framework more generally, should human rights violations be linked to it.

第一个问题涉及法院作出影响欧洲人权公约缔约国参加其他国际公约的判决的可能性。虽然法院可以而且经常认定，某一特定国家适用的法律框架与其根据《公约》所承担的义务不兼容，但对于具体国内法的修正很可能属于各国的判断范围，特别是在影响与相关法律之间的因果联系并不直接的情况下。事实上，批准和退出ECT等国际条约通常是国家立法者的特权。因此，如果该主张得到支持，法院似乎没有管辖权命令被诉国采取诸如退出ECT等具体行动，尽管法院可以要求各国更广泛地修正其国内法律框架，如果侵犯人权的行为与之有关。

（图片来源于网络）

The second open question relates to the prospects of a claim that singles out one specific investment treaty, the ECT, as the (only) one that is particularly problematic for climate action. The ECT undeniably gives rise to considerable challenges from a climate change perspective. Concluded in the 1990s with the primary purpose of fostering energy investments across Western Europe and the former Soviet Republics, the ECT has been widely criticized by climate and economic law scholars as a treaty that, protecting investments in clean and carbon-intensive energy sources alike, represents a threat to the achievement of the energy transition. In 2021, it became particularly evident how the ECT can undermine the achievements of human rights litigation for climate ends at the domestic level. A striking example is the lawsuits filed by RWE and Uniper against the Netherlands following the adoption of legislation aimed at phasing out coal power plants by 2030. Notably, that legislation sought to implement the Supreme Court of the Netherland’s order in Urgenda for the government to reduce GHG emissions to at least 25% by 2020.

第二个开放性的问题与一项主张的前景有关，该主张将一项具体投资条约，即ECT 列为（唯一）对气候行动特别成问题的条约。不可否认，从气候变化的角度来看，ECT引起了相当大的挑战。ECT于20世纪90年代缔结，其主要目的是促进西欧和前苏联共和国的能源投资，但气候和经济法学者广泛批评该条约，认为它保护了清洁能源和碳密集型能源的投资，对实现能源转型构成威胁。2021年，ECT如何破坏国内以气候为目的进行的人权诉讼的成就变得尤为明显。一个突出的例子是RWE和Uniper在荷兰通过旨在到2030年逐步淘汰燃煤电厂的立法后对其提起的诉讼。值得注意的是，该立法试图执行荷兰最高法院在Urgenda的命令，要求政府在2020年之前将温室气体排放量至少减少25%。

Yet, while numerous commentators have drawn attention to the risks of the ECT for climate action, so far the treaty has been mostly subject to legal challenges in relation to the numerous renewable energy claims brought under it. As well as leading to Italy’s withdrawal, this wave of claims has led to both the European Commission and, more recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union, arguing for the incompatibility of intra-EU claims with the EU treaties. In this regard, it is worth noting that the ECT, as a multilateral treaty, remained unaffected by the 2020 Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union. Nevertheless, respondent Member States, backed by amicus briefs by the European Commission, have repeatedly argued before arbitration tribunals for the applicability of the Achmea verdict to the ECT, which excludes investment arbitration as a means for the resolution of intra-EU disputes. While such jurisdictional objections have largely been dismissed by arbitration tribunals, it is worth noting a recent exception in a case against Spain.

然而，尽管许多评论家已经提请注意ECT对气候行动的风险，但到目前为止，该条约主要受到的法律挑战涉及根据该条约所提出的大量可再生能源诉讼。这一诉讼浪潮除了导致意大利的退出，还导致欧盟委员会和最近欧盟法院所提出的欧盟内部的主张与欧盟条约不兼容。在这方面，值得注意的是，ECT作为一项多边条约，不受2020年欧盟成员国之间终止双边投资条约协定的影响。然而，在欧盟委员会法庭之友书状的支持下，被诉成员国多次在仲裁庭上就Achmea判决对ECT的适用性进行辩论，该判决排除了投资仲裁作为解决欧盟内部争议的手段。虽然仲裁庭基本上驳回了这种管辖权异议，但值得注意的是，最近发生的一起针对西班牙的案件中出现了例外。

Despite the clear impact that the ECT has on climate change mitigation goals, it should also be noted that numerous other international investment agreements are equally well suited to protect investments that may hamper climate action. In fact, it has been argued that the risk of a chilling effect on regulation for climate objectives, far from being limited to the ECT, is an inherent trait of the current system of international investment treaties and arbitration. Significantly, a more comprehensive reform of the international investment regime ranks high on the agenda of UNCITRAL Working Group III, as well as other international institutions such as the OECD, which recently carried out an extensive public consultation to gather ideas on how to reform the system. For these reasons, it seems challenging for the Court to uphold a claim only targeting the ECT, while leaving other international investment agreements unaffected.

尽管ECT对减缓气候变化的目标有明显的影响，但也应该注意到，许多其他国际投资协定也同样非常适合于保护可能阻碍气候行动的投资。事实上，有人认为，对气候目标的监管产生寒蝉效应的风险远非仅限于ECT，而是当前国际投资条约和仲裁体系的固有特征。重要的是，对国际投资制度进行更全面的改革是联合国国际贸易法委员会第三工作组以及经合组织等其他国际机构的议程上的重要内容，经合组织最近进行了广泛的公开咨询，以收集如何改革该制度的意见。由于以上原因，法院似乎很难在不影响其他国际投资协议的同时，支持仅针对ECT 的诉讼主张。

A third controversial aspect of the ECT claim concerns claimants singling out a number of ECT State parties, arguing that they have been ‘active users’ of the ECT. While such a claim is based on the empirical evidence to date, it does not seem a strong legal argument per se, as the same rights, including resorting to investment arbitration, are conferred upon investors incorporated in any of the ECT parties. It would not be possible for States to unilaterally limit a right to bring claims before investment arbitration tribunals, as it stems from an international treaty. Even assuming that the ECT claim is upheld, it appears plausible that such a judgment could ultimately foster forum shopping by investors, who might be incentivized to relocate to one of the remaining ECT signatory States.

ECT诉讼的第三个争议方面是索赔人列出了一些ECT缔约国，辩称它们是ECT的“积极使用者”。虽然这一诉讼主张是基于迄今为止的经验证据，但它本身似乎并不是强有力的法律论据，因为包括诉诸投资仲裁在内的同样权利被赋予了任何一个ECT缔约国注册的投资者。各国不可能单方面限制向投资仲裁庭提出诉讼主张的权利，因为这种权利源于一项国际条约。即使假设ECT的诉讼主张得到支持，这种判决似乎也有可能最终助长投资者寻求有利诉讼地，他们可能会被激励迁往其余的一个ECT签署国。

Although the challenges the applicants in the ECT case face are numerous, litigation of this kind can also drive change outside of the courtroom. For instance, despite cases seeking more ambitious EU climate action being dismissed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Union has nevertheless revised, and heightened, its climate ambition (Hartmann and Willers, 2022). As such, even in the absence of a favourable outcome for the applicants, the existence of the claim itself could focus attention on the problematic aspects of the ECT from a climate change perspective and foster reform. In fact, the case could feed into the so-called modernization of the ECT, a reform process that was launched in 2019, also in order to better align the ECT with international climate commitments.

尽管 ECT 案件中的申请人面临众多挑战，但此类诉讼也可以推动法庭外的变革。例如，尽管寻求更雄心勃勃的欧盟气候行动的案件被欧盟法院驳回，但欧盟仍然修订并提高了其气候目标（哈特曼Hartmann和威勒斯Willers，2022)。因此，即使没有对申请人有利的结果，诉讼主张本身的存在也可以从气候变化的角度将注意力集中在 ECT 的问题方面并促进改革。事实上，本案可能会为所谓的 ECT 现代化提供支持，这一改革进程于2019年启动，其也是为了更好地使 ECT 与国际气候承诺保持一致。

After 14 rounds of negotiations, little concrete progress has been made in the modernization process. The lag has triggered proposals by several scholars, NGOs, as well as members of the European Parliament, for an EU withdrawal from the treaty. Yet, even if such an option was pursued, it would not give rise to immediate consequences, given the sunset clause enshrined in Article 47(3) ECT, which allows investors to continue bringing their claims for a period of 20 years. Against this backdrop, by highlighting the potential human rights violations that the ECT could entail, the ECT case may incentivize parties to the Convention to further prioritise success in the ECT reform process, while the claim awaits judicial assessment.

经过14轮谈判，现代化进程几乎没有取得实质性进展。这种滞后已经引发了一些学者、非政府组织以及欧洲议会成员关于要求欧盟退出该条约的提议。然而，即使这样的选择被采纳，也不会立即产生效果，因为ECT第47(3)条规定了日落条款，该条款允许投资者在20年内继续提出诉讼[1]。在此背景下，通过强调 ECT 可能导致的潜在人权侵犯，ECT案可能会激励公约缔约方进一步优先考虑 ECT 改革进程中的成功，而诉讼主张则有待司法评估。

[1] 即根据该条规定，即使退出条约，能源公司仍可就20年内的投资行为进行相关权益的追责。