The legal battle against climate change is escalating, even as political efforts appear to be stalling. In the last decade, legal activists have successfully challenged several national governments, prompting more climate-friendly policies in countries like the Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, and South Korea.
Dennis van Berkel from the Climate Litigation Network remarked, “There is momentum for climate litigation in the courts,” highlighting the increasing trend of lawsuits regarding climate issues. Recently, Australia’s highest court blocked the expansion of a coal mine in New South Wales due to its environmental impact.
Margaret Young, a law professor at the University of Melbourne, noted that “climate change litigation is growing domestically and internationally.” While many governments in regions such as Europe and the US are scaling back their climate initiatives, three international courts have affirmed that nations have a legal duty to combat climate change. These include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). A fourth opinion is anticipated from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, a law professor at the University of Amsterdam, stated, “A lot has been achieved in a short period of time.” Although advisory opinions from these courts are not legally binding like judgements in contentious cases, van Berkel indicated that their principles are already influencing national courts. For instance, a Paris court referenced the ICJ opinion last June in a ruling mandating TotalEnergies to factor in emissions from its products in its corporate vigilance plan.
In January, a Dutch court cited the ICJ interpretation when it ordered the Netherlands to revise its climate strategy, following a case initiated by residents from the Caribbean island of Bonaire. Both of these rulings are under appeal.
While the legal precedent regarding companies is less developed, lawyers point to a tightening net for oil firms. Prolonged legal battles have led to the revocation of permits for various fossil fuel projects, and Norway’s Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on North Sea project licenses soon. Additionally, the Dutch Supreme Court will rule in 2027 on whether to impose specific emissions reduction targets on Shell.
Another potential breakthrough could arise if courts require major polluters to compensate individuals affected by climate change based on their greenhouse gas emissions. This principle moved forward in a German court last year, which allowed a claim by a Peruvian farmer against energy company RWE to proceed, despite ultimately rejecting compensation.
Numerous similar lawsuits are underway globally. For instance, Filipino victims of Typhoon Odette are suing Shell in the UK, while residents of Pari Island in Indonesia are taking legal action against cement maker Holcim in Switzerland. In Germany, Pakistani farmers affected by the 2022 floods have also filed lawsuits against RWE and Heidelberg Materials.
However, there have been setbacks. Climate groups have lost cases against oil companies in the US, and New Zealand’s government changed laws to block a lawsuit by Māori activist Mike Smith against several domestic companies, although he plans to continue his fight.
