Are acts of God becoming acts of man? Article by the Ombudsman
Published March 03, 2025
Are acts of God becoming acts of man? Article by the Ombudsman
Published March 03, 2025
In its report of 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations stated that: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”
With all due respect to what some observers think, today natural disasters are safely being attributed to human-driven climate change. Devastating floods have increased considerably abroad because of climate change. Difficult to forget are the tragic scenes of 2024 of the outskirts of Valencia in Spain and a vast area of Emilia Romagna in Italy that were wiped off by severe flood waters; only days ago there have been other extensive floods in Toscana, Italy, particularly in the Maremma province.
In contrast we are witnessing even in Europe itself periods of drought and extreme heat that have caused suffering to people in impacted areas. In January 2025, we watched the horrible scenes of widespread devastation caused by uncontrolled fires across California in the USA. Elsewhere, especially in Africa, long and severe periods of absence of rain have added further misery to entire populations and have claimed numerous lives.
Phenomena of this nature have for long been considered to be ‘acts of God’ meaning events that happen outside the control of man. However, I ask: for how much longer can the effects of natural disasters be considered “acts of God” when states are not intervening as they should to mitigate the effects of climate change, which is a key factor that leads to these disasters?
Are we rapidly moving towards a state of affairs where “acts of God” are becoming “acts of man”? And, for how much longer will insurance companies reasonably propose indemnity cover, save maybe for exorbitantly high premia, to persons for “acts of God” which are increasingly becoming “acts of man”? I must confess; there are no simple and straight-forward answers to these questions.
I must, however, underline the fact that the movement towards State accountability in matters of climate change has been definitely triggered by the ground breaking 260-page judgment given by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of the 9 April 2024 in Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland.
The case related to a complaint by four women and a Swiss association whose members were concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health. They argued that the Swiss authorities were not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
The Court found that the Convention does comprise a right to effective protection by the State where serious adverse effects of climate change affect lives, health, well-being and quality of life. Although the Court ruled that the four women did not have locus standi to file the action as they did not qualify as victims for the purposes of an action under the Convention, the association did qualify for the status of victim.
The Court established that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life, and a violation of the right to access to the court. The Swiss Confederation was found to have failed to comply with its “positive obligations” under the Convention concerning climate change, in the sense that there had been important gaps in establishing a relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a carbon budget or national CHG emissions limitations. The Court was severely critical of the Swiss authorities’ policy failures on climate mitigation targets.
The approach taken by the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court could have far-reaching effects, because, on the basis of that remarkable precedent, future plaintiffs could sue their governments for better climate protection. Matters which were synonymous with “acts of God” (unpredictability, unpreventability, unavoidability, nature related and not linked to human action or negligence) will surely be tested in domestic courts.
In the not-so-distant future, one could come across situations where insurance companies who indemnify their insured for what are appearing all the more to be “acts of man” rather than “acts of God” can be tempted to address their subrogated rights claiming redress against States who fail in their positive obligations to reasonably mitigate the harmful effects of climate change.
In real terms the bottom line is that climate change is really and truly a global challenge that requires quick and decisive action and consequential remedies not only on the multilateral level but also even by individual States.
Hopefully the Swiss case (supra) will serve an eye opener. The emphasis should be laid on the positive rather than the negative obligations of the State. Hesitant, or even worse, complete lack of concrete action on part of States today must be ruled out.
