Authored By: PRISCILLE MABWA MBONGO
Abstract
Climate change has become one of the most pressing global challenges, prompting courts to play an increasingly significant role in environmental governance. As governments and corporations face growing pressure to meet climate commitments, litigation has emerged as an important legal mechanism for promoting accountability and protecting environmental and human rights. This article examines the evolving role of courts in addressing climate-related disputes and assesses how judicial decisions have influenced environmental governance at both national and international levels. It explores the contribution of climate litigation to strengthening government accountability, advancing corporate responsibility, and safeguarding the rights of present and future generations. The article also considers the limitations of judicial intervention, including concerns relating to separation of powers, enforcement of court decisions, and unequal access to justice. It argues that while litigation cannot replace effective legislative and executive action, it has become an essential complement to climate governance by encouraging compliance with legal obligations and reinforcing environmental justice. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that an independent and responsive judiciary is increasingly vital in advancing sustainable development and addressing the legal challenges posed by climate change.
Keywords: Climate change litigation; Environmental governance; judicial accountability; Human rights; Sustainable development.
Introduction
Climate change has evolved from being primarily an environmental concern into one of the most complex legal and governance challenges of the twenty-first century. Its impacts extend beyond ecological degradation to threaten internationally recognized human rights, economic development, public health, and global security. Although international agreements such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement establish the normative framework for global climate action, their implementation depends largely on domestic political commitment and institutional capacity.[1] Consequently, the persistent gap between international climate commitments and national implementation has encouraged litigants to seek judicial intervention as a means of compelling meaningful climate action. Climate litigation has therefore emerged as an increasingly important mechanism through which individuals, civil society organizations, Indigenous communities, youth movements, and, in some instances, governments challenge inadequate climate policies and corporate practices.
The growing body of climate-related jurisprudence illustrates a notable shift in the traditional function of courts. Rather than merely resolving disputes between parties, courts are increasingly shaping environmental governance by interpreting constitutional provisions, applying international legal principles, and reinforcing governmental and corporate accountability. Landmark decisions such as Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell, and Neubauer et al. v Germany demonstrate how judicial institutions have required governments and private actors to align their conduct with climate obligations and the protection of fundamental rights. Similarly, proceedings such as Juliana v United States and Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States reflect the growing willingness of litigants to frame climate change as a human rights issue requiring judicial protection, even where legal outcomes remain contested.[2] These developments suggest that climate litigation has become an influential avenue for promoting environmental responsibility and strengthening the rule of law in climate governance.
Nevertheless, the expanding role of courts raises important constitutional and institutional questions. Critics argue that extensive judicial involvement in climate policy risks blurring the constitutional separation of powers by transferring complex policy decisions from elected governments to the judiciary. Others contend that judicial decisions, although symbolically significant, often face practical difficulties in implementation due to political resistance, resource constraints, and limited enforcement mechanisms. Moreover, disparities in access to justice continue to restrict the ability of vulnerable communities, particularly in developing countries, to pursue climate-related claims. These concerns raise fundamental questions regarding the legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term implications of judicial intervention in climate governance.
Against this background, this article examines how climate change litigation has expanded the role of courts in environmental governance and evaluates its contribution to environmental protection, human rights, and climate accountability. It argues that climate litigation has transformed courts from traditional dispute-resolution institutions into influential actors capable of advancing environmental justice by holding governments and corporations accountable for their legal and ethical responsibilities. At the same time, the article adopts a critical perspective by recognizing that judicial intervention is not a substitute for effective legislative and executive action. Instead, sustainable climate governance requires a complementary relationship between judicial oversight, political commitment, and international cooperation. This approach reflects the broader objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 13 on Climate Action and Goal 16 on Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, while reinforcing the human rights principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[3]
This article is organised into five substantive sections. Following this introduction, the second section examines the concept of climate change litigation by defining its scope, tracing its development, and identifying the principal legal frameworks upon which it is founded. The third section forms the core of the discussion by analysing the expanding role of courts in environmental governance, with particular attention to governmental and corporate accountability, the protection of human rights, and the promotion of environmental justice. The fourth section adopts a critical perspective by evaluating the constitutional, procedural, and practical limitations of climate change litigation, including concerns relating to judicial intervention, enforcement, evidentiary challenges, and unequal access to justice. Building on this analysis, the fifth section considers emerging developments and proposes future directions for strengthening climate litigation and environmental governance through enhanced international cooperation, corporate responsibility, rights-based approaches, and improved access to justice. The article concludes by reflecting on the contribution of climate litigation to contemporary environmental governance and argues that meaningful and sustainable climate action ultimately depends on a collaborative relationship between courts, governments, corporations, and civil society.
Understanding Climate Change Litigation
Climate change litigation has become one of the most significant developments in contemporary environmental law, reflecting the growing willingness of courts to address the legal consequences of climate change where political responses have proved inadequate. Although no universally accepted definition exists, climate change litigation broadly refers to legal proceedings in which climate change is a central issue, either through challenges to government policies, corporate activities, or regulatory failures. Rather than serving only as a mechanism for dispute resolution, such litigation has increasingly become a means of strengthening environmental governance and enforcing legal accountability. As Peel and Osofsky argue, climate litigation has evolved into an important governance tool capable of influencing public policy and regulatory decision-making beyond the individual case before the court.[4]
The expansion of climate litigation is closely linked to the implementation gap between international climate commitments and domestic action. While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement establish the legal architecture for global climate cooperation, their effectiveness ultimately depends on national implementation.[5] Dissatisfaction with slow governmental responses has encouraged individuals, environmental organisations, Indigenous communities, and youth movements to seek judicial intervention. According to Setzer and Higham, climate-related cases have increased considerably worldwide, illustrating that courts are now central actors in promoting climate accountability.[6]
Climate litigation encompasses several interconnected categories. Litigation against governments seeks to compel stronger climate policies, as illustrated by Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands and Neubauer and Others v Germany, where constitutional and human rights obligations were interpreted to require more ambitious climate action.[7] Litigation against corporations, exemplified by Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc, focuses on corporate responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risks.[8] Human rights-based and constitutional claims increasingly rely on the rights to life, health, dignity, and a healthy environment, while public interest litigation enables civil society to challenge environmentally harmful decisions on behalf of affected communities.
The legal foundation of climate litigation is inherently multidisciplinary. Constitutional law provides the framework for judicial review; environmental and administrative law establish regulatory obligations; tort law offers remedies based on negligence and duty of care; while international human rights and environmental law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Paris Agreement—reinforce state obligations to protect present and future generations.[9] Consequently, climate litigation represents not judicial law-making but the evolving application of established legal principles to an unprecedented global challenge.
III. The Expanding Role of Courts in Environmental Governance
The increasing prevalence of climate litigation has significantly reshaped the role of courts in environmental governance. Rather than merely adjudicating disputes, courts are now acting as constitutional guardians that ensure governments and corporations comply with legal obligations arising from domestic law, international environmental agreements, and human rights standards. This judicial evolution reflects the growing recognition that effective climate governance requires accountability where political institutions fail to respond adequately to the urgency of the climate crisis.[10]
A primary function of climate litigation is holding governments accountable for inadequate climate action. Courts have increasingly reviewed whether national climate policies satisfy constitutional obligations and international commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.[11] The landmark decision in Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands required the Dutch Government to strengthen its greenhouse gas reduction targets, with the Supreme Court holding that insufficient climate action threatened the rights to life and private life protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.[12] Similarly, in Neubauer and Others v Germany, the German Federal Constitutional Court concluded that postponing meaningful emission reductions unfairly transferred environmental burdens to future generations, thereby limiting their future freedoms.[13] These decisions demonstrate that courts are increasingly prepared to scrutinise governmental climate policies, not by replacing political decision-making, but by ensuring that governments fulfil their legal obligations.
Judicial oversight has also expanded to corporate accountability. Traditionally, climate governance focused primarily on state responsibility; however, courts increasingly recognise that multinational corporations play a decisive role in global emissions. In Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc, the Hague District Court held that Shell owed a duty of care to reduce its carbon emissions in accordance with internationally recognised climate objectives.[14] The judgment illustrates that corporate climate responsibility extends beyond regulatory compliance to include broader obligations grounded in human rights principles, environmental standards, and responsible business conduct. Although the subsequent appeal modified aspects of the decision, the case remains influential in demonstrating that corporate climate strategies may be subject to judicial scrutiny where environmental harm is foreseeable.[15]
Another significant development is the integration of human rights into climate adjudication. Courts increasingly acknowledge that climate change directly affects the rights to life, health, property, culture, and an adequate standard of living recognised under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[16] This rights-based approach has also influenced proceedings before regional human rights bodies, including Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States, which reinforced that climate change raises serious human rights concerns even where jurisdictional requirements ultimately limit judicial intervention.[17] The growing recognition of intergenerational equity further reflects an emerging judicial willingness to protect the interests of future generations against irreversible environmental harm.
Climate litigation has also strengthened environmental justice by broadening access to courts for vulnerable communities, Indigenous peoples, youth activists, and civil society organisations. Public interest litigation enables these groups to challenge environmentally harmful decisions that would otherwise remain politically unaddressed, thereby promoting transparency and democratic participation in environmental governance. As Peel and Osofsky observe, climate litigation has become an important mechanism through which citizens influence climate policy and reinforce governmental accountability.[18] Nevertheless, litigation alone cannot resolve climate change. Its greatest contribution lies in complementing legislative and executive action by ensuring that environmental governance remains firmly grounded in the rule of law, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Challenges and Limitations of Climate Change Litigation
Despite its growing influence, climate change litigation is not without significant legal and practical limitations. A central constitutional concern is whether courts are legitimately interpreting existing legal obligations or impermissibly shaping public policy. Critics argue that judicial decisions requiring governments to strengthen climate policies risk encroaching upon the functions of the legislative and executive branches, thereby challenging the principle of separation of powers. Conversely, proponents contend that courts do not formulate climate policy but ensure that governments comply with constitutional guarantees, statutory duties, and international commitments. Decisions such as Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands and Neubauer and Others v Germany illustrate this delicate balance, where judicial intervention was justified as a means of enforcing existing legal obligations rather than creating new policy.[19]
The effectiveness of climate litigation is further constrained by enforcement challenges. Even where courts issue progressive judgments, implementation frequently depends on political will and administrative capacity. Courts generally lack coercive mechanisms to ensure compliance, making successful litigation vulnerable to governmental resistance, delayed implementation, or inadequate policy responses. Consequently, favourable judgments may establish important legal precedents without necessarily producing immediate environmental improvements.[20]
Scientific complexity also presents a substantial obstacle. Establishing a direct causal relationship between the conduct of a particular state or corporation and specific climate-related harm remains legally difficult because greenhouse gas emissions accumulate globally over long periods. Questions of climate attribution, evidentiary standards, and expert scientific testimony often complicate judicial proceedings and may limit the ability of claimants to satisfy traditional rules of proof, particularly in tort-based claims.[21]
Finally, access to climate justice remains uneven. Climate litigation is expensive, procedurally demanding, and heavily dependent on legal expertise, creating significant barriers for vulnerable communities, particularly in developing countries. Limited financial resources, weak judicial institutions, and procedural restrictions frequently prevent affected populations from seeking effective legal remedies. As Peel and Osofsky observe, unless access to justice is strengthened, climate litigation risks becoming a tool available primarily to well-resourced actors rather than those most affected by climate change.[22]
Future Directions for Climate Litigation and Environmental Governance
The continued growth of climate litigation suggests that future environmental governance will increasingly depend upon stronger interaction between domestic legal systems, international law, and judicial institutions. However, litigation should complement rather than replace political decision-making. A more coherent system of climate governance requires effective international cooperation, enhanced corporate accountability, greater recognition of human rights, and improved access to environmental justice.
The Paris Agreement provides the principal framework for international climate cooperation by requiring States to progressively strengthen their nationally determined contributions and pursue long-term mitigation objectives.[23] Nevertheless, the transboundary nature of climate change is likely to generate more cross-border litigation as claimants seek to hold States and multinational corporations accountable for conduct with global environmental consequences. While jurisdictional and admissibility barriers remain significant, recent proceedings before international and regional courts demonstrate an increasing willingness to consider climate change within the framework of international legal responsibility.[24]
Corporate accountability is also undergoing significant transformation. Beyond compliance with environmental regulations, businesses are increasingly expected to integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards into corporate decision-making. Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures, supply-chain due diligence legislation, and climate-risk reporting are emerging as essential governance mechanisms designed to improve transparency and reduce corporate environmental harm. As demonstrated by Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc, courts are increasingly prepared to examine whether corporate climate strategies satisfy evolving standards of due care and responsible business conduct.[25]
A further development is the growing integration of human rights into climate governance. International practice increasingly recognises that environmental degradation directly affects the enjoyment of fundamental rights protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Consequently, rights-based climate litigation is likely to expand as courts continue interpreting environmental protection through the principles of dignity, equality, and intergenerational justice.[26]
Future reforms should also prioritise greater access to environmental justice. Expanding legal aid, encouraging meaningful public participation, establishing specialised environmental courts, and strengthening judicial training in climate science and international environmental law would improve the quality and consistency of climate adjudication. As Peel and Osofsky argue, effective climate governance ultimately depends not only on stronger legal frameworks but also on judicial institutions capable of translating legal obligations into practical environmental protection.[27]
Conclusion
Climate change litigation has fundamentally reshaped contemporary environmental governance by expanding the role of courts beyond traditional dispute resolution towards ensuring legal accountability for climate action. As this article has demonstrated, judicial intervention has strengthened the enforcement of national and international climate obligations, promoted corporate responsibility, and reinforced the protection of fundamental human rights threatened by climate change. Landmark decisions such as Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, Neubauer and Others v Germany, and Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc illustrate that courts increasingly serve as guardians of constitutional principles and the rule of law where political responses prove inadequate.[28] Nevertheless, climate litigation is not a comprehensive solution. Its effectiveness remains constrained by constitutional limits, enforcement challenges, scientific complexity, and unequal access to justice. Consequently, litigation should be understood as a complementary mechanism that reinforces, rather than replaces, legislative and executive climate action.[29]
Looking ahead, effective climate governance will depend upon stronger implementation of the Paris Agreement, greater corporate accountability, meaningful public participation, and continued integration of human rights into climate decision-making.[30] Achieving these objectives requires sustained cooperation among governments, courts, corporations, international institutions, and civil society. Ultimately, the legitimacy of environmental governance will not be measured solely by the number of climate cases decided, but by the collective ability of legal institutions to transform legal obligations into meaningful action that safeguards both the planet and the rights of present and future generations.
Bibliography
Table of Cases
Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States App No 39371/20 (ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 9 April 2024)
Juliana v United States 947 F 3d 1159 (9th Cir 2020)
Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of The Hague, 26 May 2021) ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2021:5339
Milieudefensie et al. v Shell plc (Court of Appeal of The Hague, 12 November 2024)
Neubauer and others v Germany (Federal Constitutional Court, 24 March 2021) 1 BvR 2656/18
Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019) ECLI: NL: HR: 2019:2007
Table of Legislation and International Instruments
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162
Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107
United Nations General Assembly, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UNGA Res 70/1 (21 October 2015)
United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNGA Res 217 A (III) (10 December 1948)
Books
Boyle A and Birnie P, Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell’s International Law and the Environment (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2021)
Peel J and Osofsky HM, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press 2015)
Sands P, Peel J, Fabra A and MacKenzie R, Principles of International Environmental Law (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2018)
Voigt C (ed), International Judicial Practice on the Environment: Questions of Legitimacy (Cambridge University Press 2019)
Journal Articles and Book Chapters
Bodansky D, ‘the Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?’ (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 288
Knox JH, ‘Human Rights Principles and Climate Change’ in Kevin R Gray, Richard Tarasofsky and Cinnamon Carlarne (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press 2016)
Setzer J and Byrnes R, ‘Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2023 Snapshot’ (2023) Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Williams CA, Fisch JE and Solomon SD, ‘Corporate Governance and Climate Change’ in Jeffrey N Gordon and Wolf-Georg Ringe (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford University Press 2018)
Reports
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (IPCC 2023)
Setzer J and Higham C, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 2024)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review (UNEP 2023)
World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press 1987)
[1] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107; Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ( adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162; Paris Agreement ( adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104
[2]Urgenda Foundatio v State of the Netherlands ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019) ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007; Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of the Hague , 26 May 2021) ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339; Neubauer and Others v Germany ( Federal Constitutional Court, 24 March 2021) 1 BvR 2656/18; Juliana v United States 947 F 3d 1159 (9th Cir 2020); Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States App No 39371/20 ( ECtHR Grand Chamber, 9 April 2024).
[3] United Nations General Assembly , Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III) ; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( adopted 16 December 1966), entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171; International Covenant on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights ( adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3; United Nations General Assembly ,Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UNGA Res 70/1 ( 21 October 2015), Goals 13 and 16.
[4] Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, Climate LItigetion: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press 2015) 3-8, 15-18.
[5] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 19940 1771 UNTS 107, arts 2-4; Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162, arts 2-3; Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104, arts 2 and 4.
[6] Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham , Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation : 2024 Snapshot (Gratham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 2024) 5-9.
[7] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019) ECLI: NL: HR: 2019:2007, paras 5.6.2-5.7.9; Neubauer and Others v Germany (Federal Constitutional Court, 24 March 2021) 1 BvR 2656/18, paras 182-192.
[8] Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of The Hague, 26 May 2021) ECLI-NL-RBDHA: 2021:5339. Paras 4.4.9-4.4.55.
[9] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III), arts 3 and 25; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 6; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3, arts 11-12; Paris Agreements (n2) preamble and art2.
[10] Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky (4) 15-21.
[11] United Nations Framework Convention on climate change (adopted 9 may 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107, arts 2-4; Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104, arts 2 and 4.
[12] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019) ECLI: NL: HR: 2019:2007, paras 5.6.2-5.7.9.
[13] Neubauer and others v Germany (Federal Constitutional Court, 24 March 2021)1 BvR 2656/18, paras 182-192.
[14] Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of The Hague, 26 May 2021) ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2021:5339, paras 4.4.9-4.4.55.
[15] See Hague Court of Appeal, Milieudefensie et al. v shell plc (12 November 2024) (confirming important legal principles while setting aside the specific emissions reduction order).
[16] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A (III), arts 3 and 25; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 6; international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3, arts 11-12.
[17] Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States App No 39371/20 ( ECtHR Grand C hamber , 9 April 2024).
[18] Peel and Osofsky (4) 189-194.
[19] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019) ECLI: NL: HR: 2019:2007, paras 5.6.2-5.7.9; Neubauer and Others v Germany (Federal Constitutiional Court, 24 March 2021) 1 BvR 2656/18. Paras 182-192.
[20] Paris Agreement ( adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104, arts 4 and 15; Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham , Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot ( Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 2024) 18-22.
[21] Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, Climate Chamge Litigation: Regulatory Pthways to cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press 2015) 35-42.
[22] Ibid, 191-197.
[23] Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104, arts 2,4 and 13.
[24] Duarte Agosrinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States APP No 39371/20 ( ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 9 April 2024)
[25] Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of The Hague, 26 May 2021) ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2021:5339, paras 4.4.9-4.4.55; Cynthia A Williams, Jill E Fisch and Steven Davidoff Solomon, ‘Corporate Governance and climate change’ in the Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (OUP 2018) 762-768.
[26] Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A ( III) , arts 3 and 25, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 6; International Covenant on Economic , Social and Culture Rights ( adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3, arts 11-12.
[27] Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy (Cambridge University Press 2015) 189-196.
[28] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019) ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007; Neubauer and Others v Germany ( Federal Constitutional Court, 24 March 2021) 1 BvR 2656/18; Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of The Hague , 26 May 2021)ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339.
[29] Jacqueline Peel and Hari M Osofsky (27); Joana satzer and Catherine Higham (20) 23-27.
[30] Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2025, entered into force 4 November 2016) TIAS No 16-1104, arts 2 and 4; UNGA, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UNGA Res 70/1 (21 october 2015), Goals 13 and 16.
