06 Sep 2025 How Courts around the world are becoming key actors in climate governance

Posted at 12:45h in Climate change, Corporate Governance, ESG, Publications by

Climate change is no longer just a policy issue for governments and conferences; it has become a legal battleground. Around the world, citizens, activists, and even communities have increasingly turned to courts to demand stronger climate action and accountability. The number of climate change lawsuits has surged dramatically in the past decade, spreading to new countries and targeting both governments and corporations. The evidence is for cumulative number of climate change litigation cases globally (across 65 jurisdictions) with more than a doubling of climate litigation since 2017, when there were about 884 recorded cases, to 2,180 cases in 2022, according to the UNEP 2023 Climate Litigation Report. Climate litigation has accelerated, with nearly three-quarters of all cases filed since 2015, after the Paris Agreement. In the 2023 UNEP Report it is stated that “we’re entering… a golden moment for climate litigation”, driven by public concern and the limits of political action. Indeed, over half of these cases have outcomes favorable to climate action, and they are influencing climate decision-making far beyond the courtroom. Courts are fast becoming pivotal players in the quest to meet climate goals.

.

Fig. 1 – Growth rate of Climate Litigations (2017-2022)

However, more recently the growth rate of climate litigations has been slowing with respectively 230 and 226 new cases filed in 2023 and 2024, according to Earth.org, particularly in the cases filed under the USA jurisdiction (about 70% of all cases in 2022) with at the same time an increase of anti-climate lawsuits (about 23% of all cases in 2024).

See table below where climate litigation trends are broken down by types of climate lawsuits, the majority being against the approval procedures of big infrastructural projects and vs corporates for not complying with the goals of the Paris agreement or for misleading and false reporting on climate emissions which represent ‘greenwashing’.

Fig. 2 – Climate Litigations trends by types of Lawsuits (2015-2024)- Source: SVI Research on Climate Change Litigations database

To better understand the landscape, as the graph above reports, climate lawsuits tend to fall into a few categories: actions against governments (often invoking human rights or statutory duties to force stronger climate policies), actions against corporations (to hold private polluters accountable for emissions or misinformation), cases challenging specific high-emitting projects or infrastructure approvals, and the newer phenomenon of cases against climate measures (the anti-regulatory or “anti-climate” cases mentioned above).

Rights-Based Climate Lawsuits against Governments

One major category of climate litigation uses human rights and constitutional law to force governments into taking stronger climate action. Pioneering this trend was the landmark Urgenda case in the Netherlands. The Urgenda Foundation (an environmental NGO) together with 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government for failing to adequately protect them from climate change. The courts found that the government’s inaction breached its duty of care to citizens under Dutch law and human rights treaties, notably the right to life (Article 2) and right to private and family life (Article 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the first time any court had compelled a state to reduce emissions based on a legal duty to prevent climate harm. The Dutch Supreme Court’s final ruling in December 2019 confirmed that protecting citizens from climate change is a human rights obligation, setting a powerful example. Though not formally binding outside the Netherlands, Urgenda’s success immediately “added significantly to the global legal and political pressure” on governments. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called it a “clear path forward” for people “to undertake climate litigation in order to protect human rights”. Urgenda has since inspired a wave of similar lawsuits in other countries, as concerned citizens seek to hold their states accountable for climate promises.

Another early breakthrough came from the Global South. In 2015, farmer Asghar Leghari sued the government of Pakistan, arguing that officials’ failure to implement the country’s climate policy violated fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court agreed that “delay and lethargy” in carrying out Pakistan’s Climate Policy “offended the fundamental rights of the citizens”, in particular the constitutional rights to life and human dignity which include the right to a healthy environment. In a judgment hailed as climate justice, the court recognized climate change as a “defining challenge of our time” and found that the government’s inaction infringed citizens’ right to life. The court did not just admonish the officials, it took an active supervisory role. The Leghari case demonstrated how courts in developing countries can leverage rights-based law to spur policymakers into action on climate threats. It also introduced the concept of “climate justice” in jurisprudence – the idea that climate change responses must safeguard the rights of vulnerable people and equitably share the burdens of climate impacts.

Since Urgenda and Leghari, rights-based climate lawsuits have proliferated. Courts in more than 20 countries have been asked to decide whether governments are doing enough to protect people from climate harm. For example, in Germany, youths sued over insufficient climate targets, leading the Constitutional Court in 2021 to order the government to strengthen its climate law for the sake of future generations’ rights. In France, national courts in the Affaire du Siècle case found the state liable for failing to meet its emissions goals, violating citizens’ rights. In Ireland, an environmental NGO won a Supreme Court case striking down the government’s weak climate plan as unlawful. This string of court victories is raising hope among climate advocates that judiciaries will compel climate action where politics has stalled. As the UN Environment Programme noted, these cases illustrate that citizens and communities increasingly see courts as essential to protecting their rights in the face of the climate crisis.

A notable aspect of many of these cases is the invocation of constitutional environmental rights – sometimes called “green amendments” when they exist in a state’s constitution. For instance, the recent Held v. Montana case in the United States hinged on Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment. Sixteen youth plaintiffs sued the state of Montana, arguing that the state’s promotion of fossil fuels and a law barring consideration of climate impacts in environmental reviews violated their inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution (a state-level green amendment). In August 2023, after a first-of-its-kind trial, a Montana court agreed with the youths, becoming the first U.S. court to declare a government in violation of a constitutional climate right. The Montana case clarified that the state’s green amendment, referring to Montana’s constitutional environmental rights clause, squarely encompasses climate protection. In late 2023, the Montana Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the youth plaintiffs had standing and that the state must consider climate impacts to fulfill its constitutional duty. This victory may inspire similar youth-led constitutional climate lawsuits in other U.S. states and jurisdictions. Overall, the growing body of rights-based cases, from Urgenda to Leghari, from Europe to the Americas, has established an important principle: governments have a legal obligation to protect people from the foreseeable harms of climate change, and courts are willing to enforce that obligation when it is breached.

Fig. 3 – Major Climate Change Litigation Cases presented – SVI Research

 

Holding Polluters to Account: Climate Litigation against Companies

Early climate lawsuits mostly targeted governments, but in recent years, there has been a shift toward holding private companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Claimants are testing novel legal strategies to sue fossil fuel producers, energy utilities, and even corporate boards for climate-related harms and risks. This trend includes efforts to demand compensation for climate damages, to force companies to cut emissions, and to challenge misleading “green” claims. As the financial stakes and urgency rise, litigation is becoming a tool to change corporate behavior on climate change.

One closely watched case is a “polluter pays” lawsuit against German energy giant RWE by a Peruvian farmer, Saúl Luciano Lliuya. In 2015, he sued RWE in a German court, arguing that RWE’s enormous historical greenhouse gas emissions, as one of the world’s top emitters, have contributed to the glacial melting endangering his community. It is a trailblazing lawsuit      to attempt to make a private company pay for climate damage in another country. On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) of Hamm dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. While the case was initially allowed to proceed to evidentiary stage, it was ultimately dismissed by the court, which found no concrete danger to the plaintiff’s property.      Although unsuccessful, the court’s reasoning marked the first time a major emitter’s potential legal responsibility for climate harm was recognized under German tort law.

RWE is not the only company in the crosshairs. A parallel case has been filed by islanders from Tuvalu and other Pacific nations against Holcim, one of the world’s biggest cement makers, in a Swiss court, likewise seeking damages for sea-level rise and climate impacts caused by the company’s emissions. While in the Netherlands, environmental groups won a historic judgment against Royal Dutch Shell in 2021 (Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell), where the court ordered Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. That verdict, now under appeal     , was based on human rights and tort law, holding that Shell’s emissions endanger citizens and violate a duty of care. It was the first time a private corporation was legally mandated to align its business with the Paris Agreement goals, and it sent shockwaves through boardrooms around the world .

Increasingly, activists and shareholders are also targeting the governance and strategies of corporations in light of climate risks. A novel example was the 2023 case by the NGO ClientEarth, a Shell shareholder, against Shell’s own Board of Directors. ClientEarth argued that Shell’s 11 directors breached their fiduciary duties under company law by failing to adopt a transition plan consistent with the Paris Agreement and the earlier Dutch court order, the Milieudefensie case. This was the first-ever lawsuit aiming to hold corporate directors personally liable for mismanaging climate change risk. The claims fell under the U.K. Companies Act, alleging that Shell’s board violated duties of care and acted irrationally in pursuing an insufficient climate strategy. On 12 May 2023, ClientEarth’s bid to sue Shell plc’s board of directors was dismissed by the English High Court. The case      signaled      to corporate leaders that investors are willing to litigate over climate negligence, and it has spurred discussion about directors’ legal accountability for climate governance. In fact, the latest global trends report identifies a new category of “transition risk” lawsuits, cases against company directors and officers for failing to properly manage climate-related risks and align their businesses with climate goals1. The Shell case was a preview of this emerging legal frontier; while it failed, other similar efforts may follow; for example, shareholders of a Polish utility successfully brought a case against directors for approving a new coal plant, marking a small victory in this area .

Another recent example of lawsuit targeting the governance of a corporation aiming to hold the relevant shareholders accountable is the lawsuit filed in May 2023 by two NGOs, Greenpeace and ReCommon, against the Italian energy group ENI for contributing to climate change with its fossil fuel businesses. The Italian Economy Ministry and Italian state lender Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), which jointly control the company with a stake of 31.8%, were also named as co-defendants. As of July 21, 2025, the Italian top appeals court has ruled that Italian courts have jurisdiction to hear climate litigation cases, including those involving emissions from ENI’s foreign subsidiaries.

Corporate defendants are responding to this pressure. In some instances, companies have opted to settle major environmental lawsuits; for example, on 19/03/2021 the Federal Court of Australia held that PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd breached its duty of care towards thousands of seaweed farmers in Indonesia by causing, or materially contributing to, the death and loss of seaweed crops via a large oil spill in 2009 in the Montara oil rig in Timor Sea. Late in 2022 the company agreed to pay AUD 129 million to 15,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers in a class-action settlement. Such outcomes demonstrate that litigation can at least secure redress for victims of environmental harm.

Overall, climate litigation against companies has rapidly evolved from a nascent idea to a sophisticated front. Companies are now under legal scrutiny not just for historic emissions, but also for their future climate plans, risk disclosures, and public statements. In the words of one lawyer, this area has reached a “turning point,” as creative legal theories are tested to hold corporations accountable for contributing to global warming. While many of these cases are still uphill battles, and courts often tread carefully to avoid overstepping their role, the threat of litigation alone is driving corporate actors to take climate issues more seriously. Indeed, although corporate defendants make up only about 14% of all climate cases filed (through 2024), lawsuits against companies have had a higher success rate on average than those against governments (sustainability.slaughterandmay.com). This may reflect courts’ growing willingness to scrutinize private-sector conduct, such as specific environmental harms or misleading green claims, and hold businesses to account. For companies and their investors, the writing is on the wall: climate accountability is now a legal matter, not just a PR concern.

The financial and corporate world has also taken notice of this litigation trend. Investors and insurers are realizing that climate litigation poses a material financial risk for businesses. Banks and asset managers are under pressure to consider the legal risks a company faces from climate lawsuits when making investment decisions (iigcc.org). In some jurisdictions, we even see laws proposed to facilitate climate liability: for example, lawmakers in New York and California have discussed “climate damages” funds or statutes that would make it easier for governments to sue oil companies for climate-related harms (iigcc.org).

ESG Finance and Anti-ESG Backlash

An emerging frontier in climate litigation now involves battles over sustainable finance. Investors and regulators increasingly recognize that climate-related lawsuits pose material financial risks – triggering direct losses, denting firm values, and even stranding carbon-intensive assets (ngfs.net). The rise of third-party litigation funding has further emboldened claimants, ensuring that companies’ climate missteps can swiftly translate into costly court challenges. Yet as climate accountability gains traction in finance, it has provoked a powerful counter-movement: legal and political attacks by certain officials and industry allies aimed at dissuading climate-conscious investing and undermining voluntary climate commitments.

In the United States, a coalition of Republican state attorneys general, lawmakers, and treasurers has mounted a legal warfare campaign against ESG-oriented finance (sustainability-news.net). Their central claim is that banks and asset managers aligning with climate goals are breaching fiduciary duties or even violating antitrust laws. The most high-profile came in late 2024, when Texas, joined by ten other red states, sued BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, accusing the “Big Three” asset managers of conspiring to throttle coal production in order to advance green energy goals (institutionalinvestor.com). The lawsuit alleges that by leveraging their broad ownership stakes (e.g. pressing coal companies to cut output by 2030), these firms formed an investment cartel that hurt consumers with higher energy costs, in breach of U.S. antitrust statutes (institutionalinvestor.com sustainability-news.net). While the asset managers flatly deny the claims as baseless, observers note the case is unprecedented – it puts the contentious theory of common ownership on trial and poses what one analysis calls “a real existential threat” to the modern asset management industry’s architecture institutionalinvestor.com. This was not an isolated effort. Over the past two years, Republican officials have issued subpoenas and investigations into banks’ climate pledges, enacted state laws to blacklist financial firms deemed too “climate-friendly,” and even barred such firms from public contracts. Texas’s 2021 law, for example, forced state funds to divest from banks allegedly boycotting fossil fuels – a move that led to 11 major firms pulling back and reportedly cost Texas taxpayers up to $500 million in higher fees and interest (sustainabilitymag.com). The rhetoric behind these measures is striking: climate alliances like the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) have been attacked as massive worldwide conspiracies ceding control to the UN and “starving” American energy companies of credit (Source: sustainability-news.net). In one instance, Texas officials privately bragged about “bullying” a major bank (by threatening to cut off lucrative state bond business) until it abandoned its climate commitments (Source: sustainability-news.net). Moreover, in early 2025, this backlash achieved a legal milestone: a federal judge in Texas ruled that American Airlines violated federal pension law by allowing its retirement plan to consider ESG factors. In a first-of-its-kind judgment, the court held that the airline breached its duty to focus only on financial returns, calling its reliance on climate and social criteria disloyal under law (Source: reuters.comreuters.com). Taken together, these maneuvers represent a concerted push to shield high-carbon intensity industries from financial accountability, effectively weaponizing litigation and regulation to chill climate-minded governance in capital markets.

The consequences of this anti-ESG offensive are already reverberating through global finance. Facing intense political pressure and legal uncertainty, the six largest U.S. banks – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley – all abruptly quit the NZBA climate alliance in late 2024 and early 2025 (Source: reuters.com). Executives gave little explicit justification, but the timing spoke volumes: the exits came amid warnings from Republican officials that joint climate commitments might violate antitrust laws (reuters.com). Within weeks, several major Canadian banks and Japanese banks followed suit, and even UK-based HSBC announced its withdrawal from the coalition (Source: sustainability-news.net). Meanwhile BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, noting that its membership had caused confusion and spurred legal inquiries from various officials critical of its climate stance (Source: corporateknights.com). By January 2025 the umbrella alliance GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero) was in disarray: its affiliated net-zero groups suspended reporting requirements and loosened membership rules in an effort to stem the departures (Source: corporateknights.com sustainability-news.net). The head of one sustainable finance watchdog described the situation as a seismic political shift, with Wall Street’s climate retreat reflecting the swing of America’s political pendulum. Indeed, analysts point out that the prospect of a U.S. administration hostile to climate action, combined with courts now actively rebuking ESG practices, has made many U.S. financial institutions recalibrate their commitments.

This legal backlash has stark implications for climate litigation and investment governance worldwide. It has dealt a major blow to the credibility of voluntary climate alliances, leaving them significantly weakened and less able to steer capital away from fossil fuels (Source: corporateknights.com). The withdrawal of U.S. banks alone removed nearly $14 trillion in assets from NZBA’s collective pledge – shrinking the pool of climate-aligned finance and potentially raising borrowing costs for low-carbon projects, especially in emerging markets that rely on international funding (Source: sustainability-news.net). A widening transatlantic gap is also emerging: European banks, under stronger regulatory climate mandates, remain in the alliance, while their North American counterparts retreat to appease domestic political forces (Source: corporateknights.com). Some experts fear this divide will undermine global financial stability, for example, by encouraging U.S. lenders to prop up risky fossil-fuel ventures that could become stranded assets (Source: sustainabilitymag.com). More broadly, the saga reveals the fragility of purely voluntary corporate climate commitments in the face of orchestrated opposition. In the words of one sustainability analyst, the “era of banks making grand climate pledges without facing serious political consequences is over” (sustainability-news.net). The tug-of-war between climate accountability and anti-ESG pushback is now part of the strategic landscape in which climate litigation unfolds. As advocates press corporations and governments to act on climate science, often through the courts, an opposing front is leveraging law and politics to push back on those very efforts. The outcome of this struggle will be consequential: it will shape whether investor initiatives on climate change can retain any credibility and whether financial institutions move forward on net-zero pathways or retreat in fear of legal reprisals.

Global Trends and the New Legal Landscape

From the above developments, it is clear that climate litigation has entered a more mature and complex phase globally. Its usage has expanded across continents and legal arenas, no longer confined to a few countries or legal theories. In the past year alone, first-ever climate cases were recorded in nations like China, Russia, Turkey, Thailand, and Bulgaria, among others. This reflects the diffusion of legal strategies and the universal nature of climate concerns. Significantly, climate litigation is not only growing in number but also diversifying in purpose.

At the same time, we are recently assisting to an increasing numbers of anti-ESG cases aiming to slow down or overturn climate policies. For example, some litigants, often industry groups or political actors, have sued governments to challenge regulations phasing out fossil fuels or to object to consideration of climate impacts in decision-making. In the United States and elsewhere, this “ESG backlash” has led to cases arguing that climate initiatives overstep legal authority or harm economic interests. In 2023, about 50 out of 230 new cases were not aligned with climate goals, including lawsuits against governments’ climate plans and even Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP ) suits aimed at harassing climate activists and scientists. This underscores that climate litigation is now a “two-way street”, a tool employed both by those demanding climate accountability and by those resisting climate regulations. Courts thus find themselves arbitrating the pace and shape of climate policy on multiple fronts.

Despite the pushback, the overall trend favors those seeking stronger climate protections. Increasingly, these cases are achieving meaningful outcomes. More than half of decided climate cases worldwide have outcomes that can be considered “favorable to climate action”. Even where lawsuits do not fully succeed, they often prompt indirect impacts, such as policy changes, public awareness, and shifts in corporate behavior. Climate cases are also reaching higher courts and setting important legal precedents. Many supreme courts and constitutional courts have now weighed in on climate issues, from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in Urgenda, to the Constitutional Court of Germany, to the highest courts of Ireland, France, Colombia, Australia, and others in their respective landmark rulings. This shows that climate change is being integrated into the normal functioning of the law. As UNEP 2023 Climate Litigation Report observes, environmental law has been bolstered by developments like the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in 159 countries, and the establishment of specialized environmental courts in dozens of jurisdictions.

Another noteworthy trend is the increasing use of “strategic litigation”, cases filed not just to win compensation or enforcement in a single instance, but to set wider precedents or drive societal shifts. The vast majority of recent climate cases can be considered strategic. In fact, over 80% of the climate lawsuits filed in 2024 were classified as “strategic” litigation (earth.org), meaning the plaintiffs explicitly sought to influence policy or public opinion beyond their individual case. This includes youth-led lawsuits aiming to spur national policy reform, NGO lawsuits timed with political developments (like before elections or treaty negotiations), and legal actions intended to raise the profile of climate issues (even if the legal victory is uncertain). The prevalence of strategic litigation highlights that climate advocates see the courts as a vital arena to advance the broader climate agenda, not merely to resolve isolated grievances.

International Courts and Future Outlook

Perhaps the most striking development in recent times is that climate litigation has moved onto the stage of international law. What was once the domain of domestic courts has now prompted action in international courts and tribunals, heralding a new legal frontier for climate accountability. In 2023, for the first time, multiple international judicial bodies were asked to address climate change directly. Most notably, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is set to weigh in. In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly, acting on an initiative led by Vanuatu and a coalition of nations vulnerable to climate impacts, unanimously passed a resolution requesting an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ on climate change. The ICJ has been asked to clarify countries’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system and human rights of present and future generations. While an ICJ advisory opinion is not binding, it could carry significant moral and legal weight, guiding future litigation and diplomatic negotiations. As one of the lawyers involved stated, “no state alone can solve climate change” and thus international legal principles are needed to hold all states to their responsibilities. The International Court of Justice issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on July 22, 2025, declaring that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm under international law.

Critically, the ICJ stated that if a country fails to take adequate action to reduce emissions or adapts poorly to known climate risks, that failure can constitute a breach of its legal duties. In other words, in the Court’s view, climate inaction in the face of known harm isn’t just bad policy; it violates international law. The opinion also held that states must regulate private actors’ emissions as part of their obligations, and that harms from climate change can trigger legal responsibility, including obligations to remedy damage, under the law of state responsibility (Source: iisd.org).

© Greenpeace/Piero Good

Fig. 4 – Celebrating the winning of a Litigation case in Switzerland © Greenpeace/Piero Good

Around the same time, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its own advisory opinion on the human rights dimensions of climate change (Opinion OC-32/23, released in July 2025). In that opinion, the court of the Americas found that there exists an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, implicit in the right to a healthy environment, which all states have a duty to uphold (gibsondunn.com). The IACtHR stressed that governments must take ambitious measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change in order to protect human rights, echoing and reinforcing the principles seen in national cases like Urgenda and the Torres Strait Islanders’ petition. Notably, the Inter-American Court also recognized the concept of nature as a legal subject with its own rights, and it went so far as to describe the obligation to prevent serious environmental harm (including climate harm) as a jus cogens norm – meaning a peremptory principle of international law (gibsondunn.com). This was an unprecedented statement, signaling that the duty to avert catastrophic climate change is among the highest order norms in international law.

Earlier, in September 2022, a group of small island states had turned to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), another global judicial body, for help. They asked whether UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) obliges countries to act on climate change given the threats to the marine environment. In May 2024, ITLOS issued a robust advisory opinion: it concluded unanimously that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution of the marine environment, and that under UNCLOS, states must “take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control” pollution of the oceans from climate-changing emissions (climatecasechart.com). The tribunal emphasized that this is a binding obligation of “due diligence”, countries have to pursue stringent actions commensurate with their abilities to cut GHG emissions and protect oceans, and wealthier states are expected to do more in line with their greater capabilities (climatecasechart.com). While ITLOS did not assign specific liability to any state, its opinion essentially affirmed that countries are legally required to mitigate climate change as part of their duties to protect the marine environment.

Though these advisory opinions (from the ICJ, IACtHR, ITLOS) are not directly enforceable judgments, they carry significant moral and legal authority, hinting at a future where climate litigation becomes an even more prominent force in driving change. The momentum behind climate lawsuits is expected to continue, despite the present deceleration in the USA under Trump’s second mandate. Experts note that as the physical impacts of climate change become ever more pronounced and attributable, courts will be confronted with more compelling evidence of harm, strengthening plaintiffs’ cases. On the corporate side, a “wave of big corporate climate cases” is thought to be only a matter of time, according to legal analysts.

In sum, climate litigation has grown from a fledgling idea into a dynamic, multi-faceted legal movement. These cases are redefining what environmental accountability means in the 21st century, translating abstract climate targets into concrete legal duties. As a UN Special Rapporteur on climate justice noted, such lawsuits are “absolutely necessary to hold people to account for not taking enough action on climate change”     . Of course, litigation alone cannot solve climate change – courts are reactive institutions and cannot design policy wholesale. Yet, the surge of legal action has already achieved notable victories and injected a sense of urgency into climate governance. It has also given a voice to those most affected by the climate crisis in a forum where facts and evidence matter.

With international law now entering the fray and new precedents being set each year, the legacy of climate litigation is likely to be a fundamental strengthening of the rule of law in the era of climate change, ensuring that promises made to protect the planet are promises kept, and that inaction has a price.

As we head into the next critical decade for climate action, the message from courtrooms around the world is resounding: inaction is no longer an option, it is a liability.

For further information, see the following links:

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Print page