Duty of care and environmental stewardship : a comparative analysis of the European Convention on Human Rights and the encyclical Laudato Si'

Abstract

Abstract: Duty of Care and Environmental Stewardship This comparative study analyzes the conceptual convergence and key distinctions between the secular jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the moral-theological framework of Pope Francis’s Encyclical, Laudato Si’, in addressing the global environmental crisis. Both documents utilize the principle of the "common good" to balance economic interests against the collective need for environmental preservation, acting as complementary frameworks that define a State’s duty of care. Key Points of Overlap • Scientific Consensus & Urgency: Both sources are grounded in a solid scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. They stress an acute urgency, noting that current mitigation efforts are falling short and the planet is approaching a ecological breaking point. • Institutional Obligations: The ECHR establishes that States have a positive obligation under Articles 2 and 8 to implement robust legislative and administrative frameworks to deter threats to life and well-being from pollution and natural disasters. Similarly, Laudato Si’ views a legally binding framework as indispensable to protecting ecosystems from unchecked economic power. • Intergenerational & Social Justice: Both frameworks champion intergenerational justice, warning against placing a "disproportionate burden" on future generations. They also prioritize the protection of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly in legal standing cases (e.g., KlimaSeniorinnen) and the global poor, who suffer the gravest consequences of environmental degradation. • Procedural Rights: There is strong synergy regarding transparency, public access to risk information, and the necessity of uncoerced public participation in environmental decision-making. Core Divergences • Scope of Protection: The ECHR remains strictly human-centric, protecting the environment only insofar as degradation impacts human rights. Conversely, Laudato Si’ rejects "tyrannical anthropocentrism," attributing intrinsic value to all living creatures independent of human utility. • Nature of Solutions: The ECHR operates within a judicial framework focused on state accountability, legal remedies, and financial redress. In contrast, Laudato Si’ posits that laws alone are insufficient if the underlying culture is corrupt, calling for a "bold cultural revolution," "ecological conversion," and the re-evaluation of market-driven logic. • Secular vs. Theological: While the ECHR utilizes secular legal mechanisms and a "fair balance" doctrine, Laudato Si’ frames the earth as a divine "creation" (rather than a system of "nature"), drawing on Judeo-Christian spiritual traditions to motivate the duty of care. Conclusion Aligned with recent global shifts, such as the May 2026 UN General Assembly resolution linking human rights to climate action, this analysis concludes that secular law and spiritual ethics are fundamentally complementary. Synthesizing the legal rigor and state accountability of the ECHR with the profound cultural transformation and "integral ecology" of Laudato Si’ offers a comprehensive framework necessary to truly safeguard our "common home".