Climate in courts
People are increasingly turning to the courts to combat the climate crisis, to hold the authorities and the private sector accountable, and to make climate litigation a key mechanism for ensuring climate action and promoting climate justice.
(Inger Andersen, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme)
The global emissions of climate gases must be reduced by 42 per cent within 2030 and by 57 per cent within 2035 if the rise in temperature is to be limited to a maximum of 1.5 degrees (UN Emissions Gap Report 2024). However, many states and companies are not reducing their emissions in accordance with national climate plans or international obligations. This lack of climate action has led to a steep rise in the number civil cases raised by environmental organisations, climate activists and private individuals against the authorities. Several cases have also been raised against companies.
A database developed by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law has registered 2341 climate change cases. More than half of these cases have resulted in court decisions that have led to positive climate measures (London School of Economics and Political Science). A report from the UN Environmental Programme (2023) shows that climate litigation not only has an impact on individual countries but also provides precedents for global climate measures (Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review).
The climate change cases have fuelled a debate on what the balance should be between the role of the courts and the responsibilities of elected governments.
The European Court of Human Rights is one of several stakeholders suggesting that litigation may be a more suitable protector of future generations’ right to a sustainable environment. One of the reasons for choosing this path is that in today’s political systems, with democratic elections every fourth year, politicians tend to give priority to short-term solutions to satisfy their voters’ immediate concerns. As the climate crisis worsens, it will be more and more important to take future generations into consideration. (The Norwegian Human Rights Institution -Norges institusjon for menneskerettigheter).
Human rights as an argument in climate change cases
When it comes to climate change litigation, human rightsare being used more and more in the argumentation presented and the grounds given. See an overview of climate change cases linking climate and the environment to human rights (Sabin Center’s databases).
One historic climate change case concerns the KlimaSeniorinnen (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz) organisation, where in 2024 a group of elderly women won their case against Switzerland in the European Court of Human Rights. The case started in 2016 when the women sued the state in the national courts for not doing enough to limit global warming, which they claimed was a violation of their right to life and private life as embedded in the European Convention on Human Rights. In the court case it was argued that elderly women are particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures. When the Swiss court rejected the case, the women brought it before the European Court which eventually found in their favour. This judgment is important because it establishes that the absence of climate actions by states may constitute a violation of human rights. Because decisions made by the European Court affect all member states this creates a precedent. The decision will therefore have a major impact on future climate change cases, including in Norway.
Bringing climate change cases to court is only one of several ways that can be used to hold states and companies accountable for climate change. This litigation is often time consuming and requires substantial amounts of money and resources (Litigating the Climate Emergency, Cambridge University Press), but it is very important. As mentioned above, the judgments made set a standard for future cases. When a court has established that the absence of climate action can be illegal, this will often be used as an example in new cases in the same country, and also internationally.
Here are examples of other judgments on climate and human rights
- Urgenda vs Nederland (2019). Supreme Court ruling in the Netherlands
The Dutch environmental organisation Urgenda Foundation filed a suit against the Dutch state for a lack of climate action. The organisation argued that the authorities’ climate policy did not go far enough and therefore constituted a violation of the inhabitants’ right to life and private life as this is protected in the European Convention on Human Rights.
In 2015 a local court in the Hague determined that the Dutch Government had an obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to reduce climate gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by the end of 2020 compared with the 1990 level. The authorities appealed the ruling but lost in the Court of Appeal (2018) and the Supreme Court (2019).
It was the first time the supreme court in a country heard a climate case in relation to the rights in the European Human RightsConvention. The judgment became a global reference point for climate change cases because it established that governments have a legal obligation to protect citizens from the dangers of climate change.
Source:Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Case No. 19/00135, 20 December 2019.
- Neubauer v. Germany (2021)
In 2021 the German Constitutional Court found in favour of a group of young climate activists in a historical judgment. The plaintiffs claimed that the German Climate Act was inadequate for satisfying the country’s obligations under the Paris Agreement. They asserted that the Act violated basic rights, particularly the right to life (Article 2 of the German constitution) and the state’s obligation to protect the environment (Article 20a).
The court found that the German Climate Protection Act was too weak because it deferred the implementation of the majority of emission cuts until after 2030, which would unjustly burden future generations. The court judgment ordered the authorities to revise the Climate Act and to establish more concrete goals for emission reductions after 2030.
The judgment was one of the first in the world which explicitly recognised the rights of future generations in a climate case. After the judgment the German government adopted stricter climate goals: 65 per cent emission reductions within 2030 and carbon neutrality within 2045.
Kilde:Neubauer, et al. v. Germany, Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court), Case No. 1 BvR 2656/18, 29 April 2021.
- Climate case against Shell in the Netherlands
In 2021 the environmental organisation Milieudefensie filed a historic lawsuit against the Shell oil company in the Dutch District Court in the Hague. The plaintiffs – which included several environmental organisations and more than 17 000 private persons – claimed that Shell’s climate emissions constituted a threat against human rightsbecause they contributed to global warming.
The court sentenced Shell to reduce its CO₂ emissions by 45 per cent within 2030, in accordance with the Paris Agreement. This was the first time a multinational oil company was sentenced to cut its emissions in accordance with international climate goals. The judgment was based on human rights principles and Shell’s “duty of care”, which means that companies must act responsibly to avoid damaging the environment and harming people. The decision is a new legal precedent for holding companies accountable for climate damage.
Shell appealed the verdict and won in 2024. However, the appellate court concluded that Shell has a legal obligation based on a non-statutory duty of care to reduce its emissions to protect human rightsin accordance with scientific evidence.
Source:Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc, District Court of The Hague, Case No. C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379, 26 May 2021.
- Climate lawsuit against the government of South Korea
In 2020 approximately 200 people, including many young climate activists, filed a lawsuit against the South Korean government. They claimed that the authorities’ weak climate goals violated their fundamental rights and additionally placed an unfair and heavy burden on future generations. In particular they criticised the fact that South Korea did not have concrete emission goals for the 2031 to 2049 period.
The court found in favour of the plaintiffs in August 2024 in what now must be considered a historic judgment. The South Korean Constitutional Court decided that the lack of binding emission goals violated the rights of future generations. The court gave the government and the national assembly a deadline of February 2026 to modify the Act and introduce clear climate goals.
This was the first time a court in Asia recognised that weak climate measures can be a violation of fundamental rights. The judgment has provided a precedent and will have impact on similar climate lawsuits in the entire region. Read more (The Guardian)