On Wednesday, the lower house of the Swiss parliament voted against a ruling that mandated Switzerland to intensify its efforts against global warming, potentially triggering other countries to resist the influence of international courts.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered a groundbreaking judgment in April stating that Bern had breached the human rights of a group of older Swiss women, known as the KlimaSeniorinnen, due to its inadequate actions on climate change, Reuters reports.

However, the lower house of Bern on Wednesday echoed the upper house by approving a non-binding motion with 111 votes in favour and 72 against, criticising the European Court's “judicial activism.”

The motion argued that Switzerland, experiencing warming at a rate more than twice the global average, was already taking sufficient action, thus there was no need for further measures.

Lawmakers denounced the court’s “interference” in Swiss democracy during the debate, with one calling the Strasbourg ruling “erroneous.”

A member of parliament from the right-wing Swiss People's Party, appeared to ridicule the women, criticising them for bringing a case “because they are a bit too hot in the summer.”

Michael Graber, representing the Valais canton, referred to their argument that insufficient climate policies from the government could expose them to the risk of death during heatwaves.

“It's really disgraceful what just happened,” said Stefanie Brander to Reuters after the vote. “It's an insult and a lack of respect of our rights which were confirmed by an international court.”

Moreover, lawyer for the women's group and an MP for the Greens, Raphael Mahaim stated: “For me a red line was crossed. It is a dishonour for parliament.”

Although the governing Federal Council retains the freedom to diverge from parliament, the environment minister, a member of the council, has also seemingly downplayed the significance of the ruling.

Additionally, a legal researcher with the London School of Economics, Isabela Keuschnigg said if the government didn’t implement the ruling, it may “set a concerning precedent, undermining the role of legal oversight in democratic governance.”

If formalised, such an action would be unprecedented within the Council of Europe.