CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION: – LEGAL TRENDS AND IMPLICATION

Author: Shagun Kothari, Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur


TO THE POINT

Climate change litigation is another dimension of an increasing legal response to environmental degradation. The paper will discuss in detail the existing legal framework, significant judicial decisions, and how PIL can become a tool for countering climate change. This paper will work on both domestic as well as international legal frameworks pertaining to how the role of judiciary evolves in light of ecological disasters.

USE OF LEGAL JARGONS

Climate litigation has the doctrines of “polluter pays” and “intergenerational equity.” Judicial bodies have cited notions of sustainable development and the precautionary principle in setting liabilities. Environmental law emphasizes that the fundamental rights of affected parties enjoy the “locus standi” by allowing the incorporation of “jus cogens” norms in the international legal framework. These concepts have significantly influenced judicial and legislative actions everywhere in the world.

The Paris Agreement (2015) and national legislations like the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (India), form the legal basis of climate-related litigation. Global organizations’ information shows that the number of climate-centric legal cases has been growing steadily, indicating that the judiciary is prepared to take on this issue. Over 1,000 climate-related lawsuits were initiated worldwide in the year 2021. It can be inferred that climate-related cases have been increasing their dependence on legal frameworks to ensure environmental responsibility.

Abstract

Climate change litigation is a new field in environmental law. This article looks at the underpinning principles of law in this kind of litigation, judicial activism, and problems associated with proving causation and harm in climate change-related cases. This article focuses on efforts by the judiciary to concentrate more on sustainable development and climate justice through landmark judgments and international principles. It further delves into the role of public interest litigation in bestowing greater powers upon communities and reforming environmental policy formulation.

Case Laws

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA is mandated to regulate emissions. This was a landmark ruling in the recognition of climate change as a legal issue.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands: – This is a Dutch landmark case that obliges the state to reduce its emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, basing this requirement on human rights obligations. This case established a clear connection between environmental damage and human rights.

In the case of Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan: – the Lahore High Court acknowledged the government’s inability to execute climate policies as an infringement upon fundamental rights, thereby ordering immediate intervention. This ruling established a significant precedent for judicial bodies in developing nations.

Juliana v. United States: – It was dismissed on procedural grounds, but it furthered the advancement of a claim that governmental inaction about climate change violates the rights of future generations and therefore introduces intergenerational justice.

Gloucester Resources Limited v. Minister for Planning: – An Australian court refused a proposal for a coal mine, noting that it contributes to climate change as an essential element of the decision.

Friends of the Earth v. Shell: – The Dutch court obliged Royal Dutch Shell to reduce carbon emissions by 45% before 2030, recognizing that corporate action could mitigate climate change.

Conclusion

Litigation on climate change exemplifies the new role of the judiciary in dealing with environmental crises. By holding governments and corporations accountable, the judiciary is creating a culture of responsibility for climate issues. Concrete results are achieved through robust legal frameworks, international cooperation, and bold judicial actions. Climate-related litigation often depends on the effective use of legal principles and the willingness of courts to make environmental concerns paramount. As climate challenges intensify, judicial activism and legislative innovation will remain critical in shaping sustainable futures. The future of climate justice hinges on aligning legal principles with ecological realities while ensuring that vulnerable populations are protected.

FAQS

Q1: What constitutes climate change litigation?
A: This refers to legal proceedings initiated against governmental entities or corporate bodies aimed at rectifying environmental damage attributed to climate change. Typically, these cases emphasize the implementation of current environmental regulations or the creation of novel standards.

Q2: What foundational principles support climate litigation?
A: The underpinnings of climate litigation are grounded in principles including “polluter pays,” sustainable development, intergenerational equity, and the precautionary principle.

Q3: How effective is climate change litigation?
A: Although it has led to changes in policy and brought accountability, there are still issues of proof of causation, standing, and jurisdictional limitations. Still, it has driven legislative reforms and corporate commitments to cut emissions.

Q4: What is the role of international agreements?
A: The frameworks like Paris Agreement set legally binding commitments, which are mostly relied upon in climate litigation. These establish legal standards and objectives that the courts can implement domestically.

Q5: Is it possible for individuals to bring climate litigation?
A: Yes, through public interest litigations and class actions, individuals and groups can seek remedies for climate-related harm. In many jurisdictions, courts have accepted the standing of individuals and communities affected by environmental degradation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *