Two months after the European court of Human Rights found the Swiss state had breached article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, by not guaranteeing the “right to respect for private and family life”, by failure to set or reach environmental targets, the Swiss government has said it will not comply with the ruling.

Various climate groups had hoped that the ruling would prompt over countries to take heed, but perhaps he reverse is more likely now. At the time, one dissenting judge noted: “I fear that in this judgment the majority has gone beyond what it is legitimate and permissible for this Court to do and, unfortunately, in doing so, may well have achieved exactly the opposite effect to what was intended."

In part the issue is one of who has final say. Switzerland in particular has a strong tradition of internal and democratic governance. The idea that an external court could assess and then provoke change in the existing climate change remediation plans is against the cultural grain of the country.

The Swiss government’s stance is that compliance with the ECHR's ruling is not necessary, but the government will make a final verdict in August. Before that it may be that additional green measures are adopted anyway, and that makes the issue even more complex, as the ruling basically said the Swiss need to do more, but not what. If the Swiss do do more, does that mean it has complied, it has ignored the ruling or that the whole thing goes to court again?

---