Author: Rakhi Jha, IPEM Law Academy
Abstract
Laws related to climate change have emerged as an important mechanism to impose environmental responsibility on state and non-state actors. This article examines the legal framework behind such judicial actions, analyzes significant case laws in various courts, and evaluates the effectiveness of judicial platforms in compelling governments and corporations to adopt sustainable practices. By testing standards of evidence, legal principles (such as the Public Trust Doctrine, negligence, and the duty of care), and judicial reasoning, this article demonstrates how climate jurisprudence is evolving in response to the global environmental crisis.
Precisely
Climate change is not only a scientific or political issue – it is rapidly becoming a legal battleground. With rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss, courts around the world are being approached to decide on accountability and responsibility. Petitioners are seeking justice from governments for failing to meet climate commitments or from corporations for significantly contributing to emissions. These lawsuits are reshaping the perspectives of environmental and tort law.
Climate change litigation has emerged as a dynamic and expanding field that includes environmental law, constitutional law, administrative law, torts, and human rights. At its core, such litigation seeks to assign legal accountability to public and private actors who have contributed to environmental degradation or failed to prevent it.
The increasing number of climate lawsuits filed globally indicates a growing trend: plaintiffs are no longer waiting for political bodies or international conventions to offer solutions. Instead, they are demanding concrete and immediate action by invoking the rule of law. This legal shift represents a crisis in governance and an opportunity for judicial intervention, which can ultimately reshape climate policy, corporate behavior, and public accountability.
Use of Legal Jagron
Paris Agreement (2015): Although it is not legally binding in enforcement, it establishes a standard baseline against which the actions of states are being evaluated.
UNFCCC (1992): Establishes the fundamental framework for climate action and sets out the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
Environmental Law: National environmental policy acts (for example, NEPA in the United States), Climate Change Acts (for example, the UK Climate Change Act 2008), and other laws provide avenues for judicial review and statutory interpretation.
Tort Law: Traditional torts—especially negligence and nuisance—are being reinterpreted in light of climate impacts.
Public Trust Doctrine: The principle that certain resources (such as the atmosphere) are preserved for public use, and the government must protect and maintain them.
Public Trust Doctrine (PTD): Asserts that the government holds natural resources in trust for the public and must preserve them for future generations.
Precautionary Principle: Calls for preventive action in the face of scientific uncertainty.
Polluter Pays Principle: Requires polluting entities to bear the cost of managing pollution and environmental damage.
Transboundary Harm Principle: A customary international law norm that obliges states not to cause environmental harm beyond their administrative boundaries.
Evidence
Petitioners are increasingly relying on climate attribution science, which connects specific emissions or practices to measurable environmental harm. This science strengthens the argument of causation, which has traditionally been a weak link in complex climate cases. The defendant had a duty (legal, fiduciary, or moral), which they breached.
Standing remains a major obstacle. Petitioners must demonstrate: Actual injury (e.g., loss of land due to sea-level rise), Causation (a link between the defendant’s action and the harm), Redressability (the court’s ability to provide a remedy).
In Juliana v. United States, the plaintiffs’ standing was questioned, even though detailed allegations of government inaction were made.
Declaratory relief, injunctive orders, monetary compensation, or policy directives are sought. IPCC Reports (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Corporate disclosures under ESG regulations:
Establishing liability against corporations includes: Scope of emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3), Failure to disclose climate risks (securities fraud), Greenwashing or misleading sustainability claims.
Case Law
Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (2015, upheld in 2019)
The Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch NGO, filed a lawsuit against the Dutch government along with 886 citizens. They alleged that the state’s insufficient action on climate change violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — specifically Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life).
Hague District Court (Netherlands) Ruling: The Dutch government was ordered to reduce GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
Legal Basis: European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2 and 8).
Significance: Established the state’s duty of care to prevent foreseeable climate harm.
Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021)
The Dutch NGO Milieudefensie, along with over 17,000 individual co-plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against Shell, arguing that its business model significantly contributes to climate change and violates its duty of care under Dutch law.
Unwritten Duty of Care: Interpreted under Dutch civil law (Book 6, Section 162 of the Dutch Civil Code).
Ruling: The Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its global net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, including Scope 1, 2, and part of Scope 3 emissions.
Significance of the Case: A landmark ruling applying corporate legal duties to prevent climate change. It extended legal responsibility to both upstream and downstream emissions and signaled a major shift toward corporate accountability for global greenhouse gas emissions.
Lliuya v. RWE AG (Germany – Ongoing)
Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya filed a lawsuit against German energy giant RWE, claiming that its GHG emissions contributed to glacier melt, which has put his hometown of Huaraz at risk of flooding. Filed under German civil liability law, the case seeks proportionate damages (0.47% of flood protection costs), reflecting RWE’s estimated contribution to historical GHG emissions.
Hamm Higher Regional Court deemed the case admissible in 2017, and it may proceed to the evidentiary stage. The court is now examining scientific evidence linking RWE’s emissions to specific climate risks.
Significance of the Case: Possibly the first time a corporation could be held liable for transboundary climate damage. It could set an international precedent for climate-related liability.
Conclusion
Climate change litigation is reshaping environmental governance. Courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize governmental inaction and corporate complicity.
While barriers such as standing, causation, and non-justiciability remain formidable, the convergence of legal innovation, scientific credibility, and public pressure is enhancing the prospects of claimants. Courts are becoming increasingly willing to interpret constitutional rights, civil duties, and corporate responsibilities through the lens of climate justice.
However, the effectiveness of litigation must be seen alongside legislative reforms, corporate transparency, and public engagement. Jurisprudence must continue evolving to address the complex issues of transboundary harm, intergenerational equity, and systemic risk.
In short, the courtroom is becoming a critical frontline in the global fight against climate change.
Frequently Asked Questions
• What are the biggest challenges in climate change litigation?
Proving direct causation, overcoming procedural barriers such as standing, the political question doctrine, and limitations of jurisdiction in international cases.
• What role does international law play in climate litigation?
While most climate litigation occurs under domestic law, international legal instruments like the Paris Agreement influence judicial reasoning, especially in cases concerning state responsibilities.
• Can companies be held liable for historical emissions?
This is an evolving area. Some courts have shown openness to considering cumulative or historical emissions, especially when ongoing environmental harm can be demonstrated.
• What role does science play in climate litigation?
A crucial one. Scientific attribution reports are foundational in linking emissions to climate impacts and proving the capacity to foresee and prevent harm.
