Climate ligation serves as an enforcement tool by addressing a wide range of issues related to climate change, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (“mitigation”), actions in response to climate change effects (“adaptation”), and compensation for damages or other impacts.[1] Mitigation cases, for example, seek to halt fossil-fuel-based projects and promote renewable energy transitions, while adaptation cases aim to compel actions in preparation for climate change impacts.[2] A significant portion of climate litigation also focuses on holding parties responsible for climate impacts on public health and property.[3] Climate-related cases are rising globally; there are a variety of legal claims, including challenges to environmental reviews, public nuisance suits against fossil fuel companies, and rights-based arguments on human rights.[4] Other trends include a rising number of adaptation claims, corporate liability suits, and greenwashing lawsuits.[5] Litigation is expanding in the Global South and advancements in attribution science are helping establish causation in climate-related injuries.[6] Empowering domestic courts to enforce international climate agreements against corporations and governments is crucial to ensuring accountability and driving meaningful action on climate change. As climate impacts worsen and legal frameworks evolve, domestic courts can play a key role in holding parties accountable, influencing climate governance, and advancing global climate goals at the national level.
The Paris Agreement (“the Agreement”), adopted in 2015, stands as the most recent and comprehensive multilateral climate treaty; it brought 197 parties together to strengthen the global response to climate change and[7] has become legally binding for 195 of these parties.[8] The Agreement sets overarching goals, including holding the global average temperature increase too well below 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.[9] However, challenges persist in meeting these targets. The “bottom-up” nature of the Agreement allows countries to set their own Nationally Determined Contributions (“NDCs”), which can vary in levels of ambition and be influenced by political and economic factors.[10] While countries are obligated to pursue measures to meet their NDCs, they are not legally bound to achieve them. This creates a gap where political resistance or economic concerns can prevent effective action.[11] Furthermore, criticism that current NDCs are insufficient to meet the Agreement’s temperature goals highlights the difficulty in translating international commitments into strong, ambitious national policies, especially given the complexities of balancing climate action with economic and political realities.[12]
International tribunals are playing an increasing role in the discourse surrounding climate accountability, primarily through advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”).[13] Several nations—notably Vanuatu—have initiated a grassroots movement that led to the United Nations General Assembly’s request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the obligations of states regarding climate change.[14] This request asked the ICJ to clarify the legal obligations of states to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions for present and future generations, and to identify the legal consequences for states causing significant harm.[15] The ICJ has not established clear enforcement standards because its primary function in these proceedings is to provide legal clarity and authoritative guidance on existing international law, rather than to create binding enforcement mechanisms.[16] While advisory opinions carry significant moral and legal weight and can influence national policies and future litigation, they are not legally binding.[17]
There is also a proposal to classify ”ecocide” as the fifth core crime under the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.[18] This proposal, supported by countries like Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu—and advocated for by organizations like Stop Ecocide International—aims to hold individuals, including corporate executives and government officials, criminally responsible for large-scale environmental destruction.[19] The proposed definition of ecocide involves unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge of a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment.[20] While the ICC currently lacks jurisdiction over corporations themselves, proponents argue that individuals within corporations or governments could be prosecuted under existing principles of international criminal law; this could include superior responsibility if their actions or omissions lead to ecocide.[21] The inclusion of ecocide in the ICC’s Rome Statute could deter environmentally destructive practices by imposing individual criminal liability.[22] However, challenges remain regarding the definition of ecocide, the ICC’s capacity to prosecute such crimes, and the securement of an agreement of a substantial number of states for such an amendment.
Stakeholders increasingly employ litigation to drive climate accountability, seeking to hold governments and corporations responsible for inadequate action and enforce international legal obligations through domestic courts.[23] Landmark cases like KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland and Held v Montana demonstrate the potential for successful challenges against government frameworks, emphasizing the importance of carbon budgets and greenhouse gas reduction plans.[24] Similarly, cases against corporations, like the initial ruling against Shell, aim to enforce a duty of care based on international agreements.[25] However, governments sometimes express concerns that courts may be overstepping their role, arguing that climate policy is best addressed through political and regulatory channels rather than judicial pronouncements.[26] Corporations, particularly in sectors like oil and gas, may object to climate litigation; they argue it can disrupt economic stability and that imposing specific reduction obligations on individual companies might not effectively limit overall emissions, as others could simply fill the void.[27] Such corporations often contend that climate change is a complex global issue that requires comprehensive policy solutions and international cooperation, rather than being addressed piecemeal through legal action against specific entities. Despite these objections, even unsuccessful litigation can maintain pressure on high emitters and highlight the need for stronger regulations.[28]
Climate litigation has become a key tool for enforcing accountability and shaping policy, despite facing legal, political, and economic challenges. While courts are essential in compelling action, concerns about judicial overreach and economic disruption remain. The rise of litigation—along with developments like the proposed ecocide classification and ICJ advisory opinions—signals a growing recognition of climate responsibility. Effective solutions will require a balance of legal action, regulation, and international cooperation. Empowering domestic courts to enforce international climate agreements is crucial to bridging the gap between global commitments and national action.[29] International courts can transform global goals into enforceable legal obligations, ensuring governments are held to account.[30] By directly enforcing international climate commitments, courts can drive more consistent and ambitious climate action, fostering stronger governance and progress toward global climate objectives. As climate impacts intensify, the evolving legal landscape will continue to shape global climate governance, driving stronger commitments and enforcement mechanisms.[31]
[1] Sandra Nichols Thiam & Jarryd C. Page, Overview of Climate Litigation, Climate Judiciary Project (Jan. 2023), https://cjp.eli.org/curriculum/overview-climate-litigation.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Christina Voigt, The Power of the Paris Agreement in International Climate Litigation, 32 Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law. 237, 238 (Jan. 10, 2023).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 239.
[11] Id. at 242.
[12] Id. at 241.
[13] Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, ICJ Advisory Opinion and the Future of Climate Responsibility, Int’l Inst. Sustainable Dev. (Sept. 11, 2024), https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/icj-advisory-opinion-and-the-future-of-climate-responsibility/.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Explainer: The International Court of Justice Considers Climate Change, Int’l Union for Conservation of Nature and Nat. Res. (Dec. 13, 2024), https://iucn.org/story/202412/explainer-international-court-justice-considers-climate-change#:~:text=What%20are%20these%20proceedings%20about,could%20face%20any%20legal%20consequence.
[18] Liana Georgieva Minkova, The Fifth International Crime: Reflections on the Definition of “Ecocide, 25 J. Genocide Rsch. 62, 62 (2023).
[19] Ritwik Sharma, Ecocide as the Fifth International Crime Is the Rome Statute Compatible with Ecocide?, Voelkerrechts Blog (Jan. 16, 2025), https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/ecocide-as-the-fifth-international-crime/.
[20] Id.
[21] Oscar Van Den Heede, Ecocide as the Fifth Core Crime in the Rome Statute, 55 Int’l L. Pol. 435, 442.
[22] Liana Georgieva Minkova, supra note at 18, at 70-71.
[23] Thomas Englerth, Bruno Bastit & Paul O’Donnell, Climate Litigation: Assessing Potential Impacts Remains Complex, S&P Global (May 7, 2024), https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/featured/special-editorial/climate-litigation-assessing-potential-impacts-remains-complex.
[24] Jane Murray, Governments May Face Greater Legal Scrutiny on Climate Action Plans Ahead, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (Jan. 8, 2024), https://www.iigcc.org/insights/grantham-institute-lse-climate-change-litigation-global. trends#:~:text=Even%20though%20just%205%25%20of,these%20could%20influence%20domestic%20proceedings.&text=Around%2015%20cases%20were%20filed,successes%20could%20drive%20further%20increases.
[25] Carol Liao, Climate Change and Stakeholder Enforcement of International Law Against Corporations, Harvard International Law Journal (Dec. 20, 2024), https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/2024/12/climate-change-and-stakeholder-enforcement-of-international-law-against-corporations/.
[26] See Isabella Kaminski, Shell Defeats Landmark Climate Ruling Ordering Cut in Carbon Emissions, The Guardian (Nov. 12, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/12/shell-wins-appeal-against-court-ruling-ordering-cut-in-carbon-emissions (“corporate emissions [are] a matter for politicians, not the judiciary”).
[27] Id.
[28] Carol Liao, supra note 25.
[29] Explainer, supra note 17.
[30] Id.
[31] Carol Liao, supra note 25.
