a) You know the answer.
b) Last time I looked on the map, India was not in Europe.
> Instead we have people arguing literal nonsense in a court.
Either you're arguing in bad faith, or you don't understand that this might help pushing governments to take stricter measures.
There is an international court of human rights. How often was India found guilty there?
>Either you're arguing in bad faith, or you don't understand that this might help pushing governments to take stricter measures.
I am 100% convinced that there is nothing which makes you object more to climate protection than a foreign entity trying to compel the government you control to "do more".
And even if. When will India/China act? How many International court of human rights ruling will that take?
There isn't. There is the ICJ, which handles disputes between states, and the ICC, which handles war crimes etc. and definitely isn't going to judge climate legislation.
The International Criminal Court is not the European Court of Human Rights.
The ICC appears to be focused on crimes against humanity, and I'm not a lawyer so I'd be even worse than ChatGPT at figuring out if climate change would be under that banner.
India is neither a state party, nor a signatory, to the ICC, so (again, IANAL) I assume that means they can't be taken before it.
> When will India/China act?
They already are, because despite the memes the problem itself is directly relevant to both, and the solution happens to be a cheap export opportunity and soft power projection opportunity for one, and a subsidised cheap economy growth opportunity for the other.
> When will India/China act?
First, China has made promises, and have acted a bit. But we, the people, don't hold leverage over China nor India, so it will be on their citizens to achieve any progress, or on international powers to apply sanctions. But international politics is extremely slow and change averse, so probably the 2C limit will have become unavoidable by the time that happens.
But above all: this decision does not depend on China nor India. It's totally irrelevant to object to it by appealing to those countries.
The ECHR rules that Switzerland has failed to meet its treaty obligations WRT climate action. IE, there's been an internal failure by Switzerland's government and courts to enforce its own legislation and treaty obligations. So, these women took the next step - an international court (to which Switzerland is a party - if the Swiss don't like it, they should vote to abandon their obligation to the ECHR).