Climate lawsuits gain ground as courts issue obligations globally

Climate lawsuits are accelerating globally as state and international courts issue obligations, even as governments roll back environmental policies and upcoming Cop negotiations stall on fossil fuel reductions. Legal activists and plaintiffs are using landmark advisory opinions from international tribunals to secure domestic rulings against major emitters and fossil fuel infrastructure.

Australia Court Blocks Coal Mine Expansion Amid International Legal Shifts

Australia’s highest court blocked the expansion of a coal mine in New South Wales earlier this week, citing its direct climate impact. This decision coincides with a broader push in international law. Over the past two years, three international courts have affirmed in advisory opinions that countries possess legal obligations to address climate change: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with a fourth opinion expected from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Climate change litigation is growing domestically and internationally, said Margaret Young, a law professor at the University of Melbourne, highlighting the rapid expansion of these legal frontiers.

While political efforts are losing steam, legal activists have successfully compelled national governments to adopt greener policies in countries such as the Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, and South Korea over the past decade.

A lot has been achieved in a short period of time, noted Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, a law professor at the University of Amsterdam who served as a legal expert in proceedings across all three courts.

Courts Apply International Norms to Domestic Emitters and Energy Projects

Although advisory opinions from international bodies are not strictly binding in the manner of contentious judgments, national plaintiffs are actively utilizing their underlying legal principles. Dennis van Berkel of the Climate Litigation Network noted, That norm is now flowing back to being picked up by the plaintiffs in different countries (and) used in their litigation.

This cross-border judicial influence has already altered corporate accountability. A Paris court cited the ICJ opinion last June when ordering TotalEnergies to integrate emissions tied to the use of its products into its corporate vigilance plan. Similarly, a Dutch court relied on the ruling in January to direct the Netherlands to fortify its climate strategy following a lawsuit brought by residents of Bonaire, a Dutch Caribbean island, though both decisions are currently facing appeals.

Despite what politicians say about the international legal system, judges still respect and apply international law in many countries around the world, observed Sophie Marjanac, legal director at the Redwater Insights think tank.

Tightening Legal Net Challenges Oil, Gas, and Coal Infrastructure

Corporate accountability remains less established than state obligations, yet legal challenges are increasingly targeting fossil fuel infrastructure, including the EACOP pipeline’s oil terminal at Tanga on the coast of Tanzania. Jasper Teulings of the Climate Litigation Network described this trend as a tightening net for oil companies.

Years of legal battles have successfully overturned permits for oil, gas, and coal projects in the UK, while Norway’s Supreme Court prepares to rule shortly on North Sea exploration licenses. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands is scheduled to issue a decision in 2027 regarding a major case from environmental group Milieudefensie against Shell, which seeks to mandate specific emissions-reduction targets for the energy firm.

Polluter Pays Principle Tested in Global Climate Liability Cases

Litigants are also pressing courts to enforce compensation requirements against major emitters for climate harms experienced by vulnerable populations worldwide. German courts moved toward recognizing this liability principle last year in a suit filed by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy firm RWE. Although his specific claim for compensation was dismissed, the court left open the possibility of holding major greenhouse gas emitters financially liable for climate impacts.

Equivalent lawsuits are currently pending across multiple jurisdictions. These include actions filed by Philippine victims of Typhoon Odette against Shell in the UK, residents of Indonesia’s Pari Island suing cement manufacturer Holcim in Switzerland—where a Swiss court permitted the case to proceed—and Pakistani farmers impacted by the devastating 2022 floods taking legal action against RWE and Heidelberg Materials in Germany.

Obstacles remain. Climate groups have faced defeats in lawsuits against oil companies within the United States. In New Zealand, the government amended legislation specifically to block a lawsuit brought by Maori activist Mike Smith against six domestic corporations, though he has pledged to press onward with his legal campaign.