Courts worldwide increasingly cite international climate law in rulings
Judges in national courts are using advisory opinions from international tribunals to order governments and companies to act.
National judges are increasingly applying international climate law to compel action from governments and corporations. This follows advisory opinions from three global courts affirming countries' legal duties to combat climate change. A fourth such opinion is anticipated from the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. Dennis van Berkel of the Climate Litigation Network said there is momentum for climate litigation in the courts. He explained that the legal principles from these international opinions are now being used by plaintiffs in national lawsuits.
In one example last June, a Paris court cited an International Court of Justice advisory opinion. It ordered TotalEnergies to account for emissions from the use of its products in its corporate vigilance plan. In January, a Dutch court also referenced the ICJ opinion. It ordered the Netherlands to strengthen its climate plan in a case brought by residents of Bonaire. Both rulings are currently under appeal.
"Despite what politicians say about the international legal system, judges still respect and apply international law in many countries around the world," said Sophie Marjanac of the Redwater Insights think tank. Law professor Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who served as an expert in the international proceedings, said, "A lot has been achieved in a short period of time." The opinions came from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the ICJ. While advisory opinions are not binding like court judgments, van Berkel said they establish legal norms. He noted these norms are flowing back to national courts. "Climate change litigation is growing domestically and internationally," said University of Melbourne law professor Margaret Young. This legal activity contrasts with political trends, as governments in Europe and the United States scale back climate policies.
READ MORE: Auditor general to release reports on emissions, dental care and military ammunition
READ MORE: Youth climate trial opens with arguments over constitutional duty
The legal precedent for holding corporations accountable is less established than for states. Jasper Teulings of the Climate Litigation Network said there is a "tightening net" for oil companies. Litigation has already led to overturned permits for fossil fuel projects in countries like the UK. Norway's Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on North Sea project licenses. A major case against Shell, brought by Milieudefensie, is set for a ruling from the Dutch Supreme Court in 2027. The court will decide whether to impose a specific emissions-reduction target on the energy giant. Another potential legal breakthrough would see a major polluter ordered to pay compensation to people harmed by climate change, proportionate to its emissions.
German courts advanced this principle in a case brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against RWE. They rejected his compensation claim but left the door open to future liability for major emitters. Similar lawsuits are pending in several countries. These include Philippine typhoon victims suing Shell in the UK and Pakistani farmers suing RWE in Germany over 2022 floods.
Climate litigation has faced setbacks, with losses against oil companies in US courts. In New Zealand, the government changed the law to block a lawsuit by Maori activist Mike Smith against six domestic companies. Smith has vowed to continue his fight. Global climate negotiations at the upcoming Cop in November are not expected to deliver major progress on cutting fossil fuels.
With files from Yahoo News