“I don't want a child”: an apolitical argument in climate change trials in Switzerland

This paper aims to explore how the argument of “eco-reproductive” concerns was mobilized in climate change trials in Switzerland. Looking at social movements' advantages and constraints when having recourse to the law, the authors interrogate why the symbolism of reproduction and kinship represented a political opportunity to defend the activists in a judicial system where judging is seen as an apolitical act.

This paper is grounded in legal research and research on social movements. While legal research focuses mainly on the study of legal and written sources, the authors used ethnography and conducted interviews to cross the perspectives of activists, their lawyers and judges.

In a context where positivist legal tradition remains strong, the “eco-reproductive” argument represented the advantage of being “apolitical,” thus audible in court. Used as socio-political tools, “eco-reproductive” concerns translated the activists' political claims into the legal arena. However, judges' conservative beliefs on family reinforced the depoliticization of activists' claims.

While research on “eco-reproductive” concerns has been significantly quantitative and exploratory, the authors look in depth at one case of application and highlight the limits of “eco-reproductive” concerns to appeal to decision-makers.