Workbook - Climate Litigation

Introductory Course on
Climate Rights Litigation

Course Workbook
1
Contents
Lesson 1: Sources and Substance of Climate Rights ...................................................................... 4

Learning Objectives ........................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5
Substance of Climate Rights ........................................................................................... 5
Sources of Climate Rights .............................................................................................. 7
International Agreements ....................................................................................................... 8
International Declarations, Norms, and “Soft Law” Instruments .......................................... 9
Regional Agreements ........................................................................................................... 10
Regional Declarations, Norms, and Other “Soft” Instruments” .......................................... 11
National Constitutions ......................................................................................................... 11
Recap............................................................................................................................. 12
Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]............................. 13
Additional Resources .................................................................................................... 14
Lesson 2: Litigation’s Role in Protecting Climate Rights ............................................................ 15
Learning Objectives ...................................................................................................... 15
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16
Amplifying and Accelerating National Ambition................................................................ 17
Holding Governments Accountable for Meeting the Goals They Set ................................. 19
Challenges Facing Climate Litigants ................................................................................... 19
Recap............................................................................................................................. 21
Lesson 3: Challenging Ambition, Existence, and Implementation of National Mitigation and
Adaptation Targets ........................................................................................................................ 23
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 24
Cases Challenging National Mitigation and Adaptation Targets ........................................ 24
Looking Ahead to New Actions .......................................................................................... 26
Failures to Adapt and Implementation of Adaptation Measures ......................................... 26
Recap............................................................................................................................. 27
Lesson 4: Challenging Specific Policies or Projects .................................................................... 30
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 31
Challenging Specific Policies or Projects ............................................................................ 31
Looking Ahead to New Actions .......................................................................................... 33
Recap............................................................................................................................. 34
2
Lesson 5: Cases in International Fora ........................................................................................... 36
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 37
Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s Petition ............................................................................. 37
Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Concerning the
Interpretation of Art. 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights . 38
Armando Ferrão Carvalho and Others v. The European Parliament and the Council ......... 38
Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al. .......................................................................................... 38
Wrap Up ............................................................................................................................... 39
Recap............................................................................................................................. 39
Lesson 6: Cases Addressing Rights of Persons, Groups, and Peoples in Vulnerable Situations . 41
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 42
Children and Youth .............................................................................................................. 42
Indigenous Peoples .............................................................................................................. 44
Persons experiencing or expecting displacement ................................................................ 45
An Expanding Range of Theories ........................................................................................ 46
Recap............................................................................................................................. 47
3
Lesson 1: Sources and Substance of Climate Rights
Learning Objectives
• Define and understand climate rights

• Identify the most significant sources of climate rights
• Describe the specific guarantees that climate rights typically address
4
Introduction
Litigants assert a broad range of legal theories, some of which are premised on climate-
related legal obligations and others that seek to effect greater climate action through laws and
policies not specifically addressed to climate change. This course focuses on cases asserting that
insufficient action to mitigate or adapt to climate change violates plaintiffs’ international and
constitutional rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food, water, liberty, family life, and
more. Recent years have seen an increased number of “climate rights” cases. Although climate
rights cases are premised on a broad range of different rights and are brought before many
different courts, tribunals, and other fora, these cases often face similar obstacles.
This course identifies specific rights relating to the enjoyment of a safe and stable
climate, describes the role that climate change litigation plays within the broader context of
global climate governance, and highlights the significant cases arising in climate litigation. Some
growing trends in climate rights litigation include cases brought in international fora, domestic
challenges to national climate targets, challenges to proposed projects relating to the climate, and
actions brought to protect the rights of individuals and groups who are particularly vulnerable to
climate change.
Lesson 1 will focus on describing climate rights and identifying the specific guarantees
that those rights provide.
Substance of Climate Rights
As used throughout this course, “climate rights” refers to both international and domestic
commitments made to ensure that people will enjoy a safe and stable climate as well as other
rights which do not explicitly focus on climate, but have an impact in addressing climate change.
These rights are variously known as human rights, environmental rights, and human rights
obligations related to the environment. These rights fall into three main categories: substantive
obligations, procedural obligations, and obligations relating to persons and groups in vulnerable
situations.
While definitions of a safe and stable climate vary, most emphasize that the right to enjoy
a safe and stable climate guarantees ecological conditions conducive to the highest attainable
standard of health with an expectation the conditions will remain that way for the foreseeable
future. This expectation includes that air, water, and land are free from dangerous levels of
pollution, that ecosystems are preserved and biodiversity is not lost, and that conditions allow for
adequate food and housing to be maintained. The Special Rapporteur on human rights and the
environment recently described the right to a healthy environment to include “a safe climate,
clean air, clean water and adequate sanitation, healthy and sustainably produced food, non-toxic
environments in which to live, work, study and play, and healthy biodiversity and ecosystems.”1
Climate rights typically place obligations on governments to prevent environmental harm

that interferes with human rights, including the rights to a healthy environment, life, liberty,
1
Safe Climate: A Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment 22-23 (2019)
5
health, security of person, the enjoyment of family life, and others. Substantive obligations of
climate rights include duties to adopt and implement a framework for guarding against climate
harms; to prevent private actors from engaging in environmental degradation; and to prevent
transboundary harms. These obligations frequently overlap with one another, and as subsequent
lessons will describe, litigants often describe failures to address climate change as a violation of
multiple substantive obligations related to multiple rights.
How Does Climate Change Threaten Certain Substantive Climate Rights?

Right to Life Right to Liberty Right to Health Right to an Adequate Standard
of Living
Observed and Sea level rise The right to health is Climate change threatens a
projected climate and extreme understood to imply a range of important rights that
change impacts weather events right to enjoy goods, relate to maintaining an
create direct and threaten the services, and adequate standard of living—
indirect danger habitability conditions that are those include, among others,
to human lives. and—in the case necessary to allow a rights to cultural identity, to
Increasingly of low-lying person to live a biodiversity, to ecosystem
frequent and nations— healthy life. Access to services, and to dignity.
severe floods, existence of adequate food, clean Among many other impacts,
storms, territories around water, and secure climate change threatens to
wildfires, the world. The housing are closely force people around the world
droughts, and right to liberty is related rights. Climate to leave culturally significant
other extreme threatened by change threatens these areas, lose ecosystem services
weather events climate impacts rights by placing on which communities depend
create a that displace greater stress on health for sustenance and identity,
heightened risk people from systems worldwide and to cope with myriad other
of injury and / or where they and by endangering unwanted and dangerous
death. would otherwise supplies of food and disruptions to daily life.
prefer to live. clean water.
Procedural obligations include duties to assess environmental impacts and make that
information available to the public; to facilitate public participation in climate-related decision
making; and to provide access to justice and an effective remedy when violations of these rights
occur. Implementation of these obligations helps to ensure that substantive rights can be
effectively enforced. Procedural obligations frequently require governments to implement laws
and policies in order to ensure substantive rights can be effectively fulfilled. Those laws and
policies include, for example, measures to facilitate effective public participation in decision
making and ensure the public’s comments are considered, and regular (often standardized)
processes through which a government can communicate environmental information to citizens.
• Access to Information:
o Access to information is usually viewed as a prerequisite to exercising other
procedural rights. Courts have held that states have an obligation to assess and
disclose foreseeable environmental risks. Those risks include environmental risks
caused by government or business activities, and other risks that threaten the
enjoyment of human rights related to the environment.
6
• Public Participation:
o A variety of human rights treaty bodies have determined that governments must allow
the public to participate in environmental decision making. The level of participation
guaranteed varies in contexts around the world, but it should at a minimum ensure
that public concerns can be heard and considered in some way.
• Access to Justice:
o Ensuring access to justice means that states must provide access to administrative and
judicial processes that can consider claims of human rights violations related to
climate change. Additionally, for access to justice to have a meaningful effect for
rights-holders, states must also ensure that effective remedies are available when
violations of rights are found.
Finally, states have obligations relating to persons, groups and peoples in vulnerable
situations. These rights are incorporated in a general obligation of states to not discriminate in
the application of climate rights, and are often articulated as standalone rights as well. They may
be held by individuals or by groups of people collectively. These rights include, for example,
duties to protect the rights of women, children and youth, older adults, people with disabilities,
Indigenous Peoples, and minority groups. Some groups enjoy unique rights, including for
example the right to free, prior and informed consent that pertains to Indigenous Peoples, and
children and youth’s right to environmental education. Moreover, several sources of climate
rights describe countries’ affirmative obligation to protect the interests of persons and groups in
vulnerable situations.
In the next section you will learn more about the international, regional, and national
instruments that exist to describe and enforce these rights.
Sources of Climate Rights
Climate rights are found in both international and regional agreements, as well as in
domestic laws and the decisions of domestic courts. Over 150 nations around the world have
guaranteed their citizens a constitutional right to a healthy environment or have recognized
comparable rights through legislation, court decisions, or ratification of regional agreements.
Several nations around the world have incorporated specific climate rights into their
constitutions. As of October 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council has recognized
that access to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right.
This section describes key examples of these international, regional, and national
instruments, but is not an exhaustive list. In addition to the examples listed here, multilateral
environmental agreements (“MEAs”) exist in many parts of the world and provide another, albeit
indirect, guarantee of human rights. Agreements that prohibit illegal trade in wildlife, preserve
marine habitats and terrestrial biodiversity, lessen transboundary pollution, and prevent other
environmentally damaging activities serve to curb behaviors that could otherwise constitute
violations of human rights.
7
International Agreements
The leading international human rights treaties do not recognize a unique right to a
healthy environment or to a stable climate. There is growing international consensus that failing
to take appropriate steps to address climate change can undermine enumerated human rights. For
example, a 2021 fact sheet by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights notes that
“[c]limate change poses a threat not just to human life, but to all life,” noting that climate change
“already affects the human rights of countless persons and the impacts are only getting worse.”
“A human rights-based approach should be integrated in any climate change adaptation

or mitigation measure, such as the promotion of alternative energy sources, forest conservation
or tree-planting projects, resettlement schemes and others. Affected individuals and communities
should be allowed to participate, without discrimination, in the design, implementation and
leadership of these projects. They must have access to due process and to remedy if their rights
are violated.” -Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2021.
“Hard” international instruments refer to instruments which are legally binding on

parties, and can be enforced before courts or other adjudicative bodies. Treaties, conventions,
and other agreements constituting hard law can be used as the basis for litigants to bring a
climate rights case.
• Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

o The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights enumerates
many rights, including the right of everyone to self-determination (Art. 1), to an
adequate standard of living that includes sufficient food, clothing, and housing (Art.
11), and to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Art. 12).
There are 171 parties to the covenant, which entered into force in 1976.
• Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
o The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes rights to life (Art.
4) and to self-determination (Art. 1), as well as a wide range of procedural rights that
relate to environmental protection. Those include rights to take part in public affairs
without interference (Art. 25) and to enjoy equal treatment before courts and other
tribunals (Art. 14). There are 173 parties to the covenant, which entered into force in
1976.
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
o The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination directs party states to review national and local policies to identify and
nullify any that create or perpetuate racial discrimination. The convention further
commits state parties to, when possible, take “special and concrete measures” to
guarantee everyone is able to achieve the “full and equal enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms.” (Art. 2). There are 182 parties to the convention, which
entered into force in 1969.
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
o The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
as its name suggests, commits convention parties to eliminating discrimination
against women in all forms and to taking affirmative steps to eliminate discrimination
8
against women by any person, organization, or private enterprise. There are 189
parties to the covenant, which entered into force in 1981.
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
o The Convention on the Rights of the Child reaffirms party states’ commitment to
ensuring that human rights are guaranteed to young people. In addition, the
convention notes that a child “shall in particular be given the opportunity to be heard
in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child” (Art. 12) and
recognizes “the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s
physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development” (Art. 27). There are 196
parties to the covenant, which entered into force in 1990.
International Declarations, Norms, and “Soft Law” Instruments
In addition to treaties, agreements, and covenants, a range of “soft law” instruments

affirm human rights obligations applicable to climate change. These agreements do not contain
binding obligations, and instead set out statements of policy and priority that can inform how
courts adjudicate climate rights cases. Even though these types of instruments typically do not
provide an enforcement mechanism that would be an independent basis for a court to review a
government’s climate action (or inaction), they can give judges a benchmark against which to
measure government action. Climate mitigation and adaptation action can be found inadequate,
for example, where the actions or inactions are inconsistent with a government’s articulated
priorities, as made by assenting to these kinds of instruments.
• Universal Declaration on Human Rights

o The Universal Declaration on Human Rights does not specifically articulate climate
rights, but affirms many other rights that have been interpreted to require preservation
of a safe and stable climate. Those rights include the substantive rights to life, liberty,
and security of person (Art. 3), as well as procedural rights like the right to non-
discriminatory treatment (Art. 7) and to access to effective remedies for violations of
rights (Art. 8).
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
o The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the right
of Indigenous People to the full enjoyment of all the human rights guaranteed by
international law. The declaration includes the right to self-determination (Art. 3) and
the right to participation in decision-making in matters that would affect Indigenous
Peoples’ rights (Art. 18). The declaration further affirms that Indigenous People have
the right not to be subjected to the destruction of their culture, and specifically not to
be subjected to actions that have “the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their
lands, territories or resources” (Art. 8).
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
o The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes that the “global nature of
climate change calls for the widest possible international cooperation aimed at
accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions and addressing
adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change” (Paragraph 31), and references
the rights of a range of persons in vulnerable situations.
• Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment
9
o The Stockholm Declaration, recognized a “fundamental right to freedom, equality and
adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of
dignity and well-being” (Principle 1), as well as an obligation on states to “ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment
of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (Principle 21).
• Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
o The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development recognized, among other
principles, that “[h]uman beings are . . . entitled to a healthy and productive life in
harmony with nature” (Principle 1) and that “each individual shall have appropriate
access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities,
including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and
the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes” (Principle 10).
Regional Agreements
Regional agreements exist in nearly every corner of the world, and address many of the
same core human rights affirmed in international human rights instruments.
• The 1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and

Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)
o The Aarhus Convention refers to “the right of every person of present and future
generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being”
(Art. 1), and guarantees the right of access to environmental information (Arts. 4 and
5), the right to participation in environmental matters (Arts. 6, 7 and 8) as well as the
right to access justice (Art. 9). The ratification of the Convention is open to any
countries, not limited to states in the European region.
• Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in
Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (“Escazú Agreement”)
o The Escazú Agreement addresses several rights that relate to climate impacts.
Specifically, among other rights, the agreement affirms the right of “every person to
live in a healthy environment” (Art. 4), and further recognizes that states parties have
an obligation to ensure that the public has access to environmental information,
provided at no cost, and that the members of the public have avenues to appeal
denials of environmental information(Art. 5). There are 12 parties to the agreement,
which entered into force on April 22, 2021.
• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights
o The Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) recognizes that
“Everyone shall have the right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to
basic public services. [And that] [t]he States Parties shall promote the protection,
preservation, and improvement of the environment.” (Art. 11). The protocol has been
ratified by seventeen nations in North and South America.
• European Convention on Human Rights
o The European Convention on Human Rights acknowledges, among many others,
rights to life, liberty, and an effective judicial remedy for violations of those rights.
10
All 47 members of the European Council (including all 27 members of the European
Union) are parties to the convention.
Regional Declarations, Norms, and Other “Soft” Instruments”
• European Social Charter

o The European Social Charter recognizes core human rights, focusing on economic,
social, and cultural rights. The charter addresses the rights of women, elderly persons,
young persons, and other persons, groups, and peoples in vulnerable situation to fair
and safe working conditions.
• ASEAN Human Rights Declaration
o The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration affirms many of the same rights recognized
in international agreements, and specifically includes the right to a safe, clean, and
sustainable environment as an element of the right to an adequate standard of living
(para. 28 (f)). The Declaration was adopted by all members of the ASEAN.
• Arab Charter on Human Rights
o The Arab Charter on Human Rights recognizes a broad range of human rights,
including rights to self-determination, non-discrimination, liberty, security of person,
and equal access to judicial process. The Charter recognizes the right to a healthy
environment as part of the right to an adequate standard of living that ensures well-
being and a decent life (Art. 38). The charter has been ratified by about a dozen
signatories.
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
o The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights recognizes, among others, that
“all peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to
their development” (Art. 24), “[e]very human being shall be entitled to respect for his
life and the integrity of his person,” and that “[e]very individual shall have the right to
enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health.” (Art. 16). As of 2021,
54 African countries have ratified the charter.
National Constitutions
This section describes several examples of nations which have incorporated specific climate
rights into their constitutions. Note that this list is not exhaustive, and more countries may
incorporate these rights into constitutions and comparable laws in the future. Further, some of
these rights are self-executing and thus immediately enforceable. Others are found in general
principles of state policy and may therefore be helpful for a court justifying a climate decision,
but are not independent bases for litigants to bring an action.
• Dominican Republic
o “The formulation and execution, through law, of a plan of territorial ordering that
ensures the efficient and sustainable use of the natural resources of the Nation, in
accordance with the necessity of adaptation to climate change, is a priority of the
State[.]” (Art. 194).
• Cote d’Ivoire
11
o “We, the People of Côte d'Ivoire . . . express our commitment to . . . contribut[e] to
climate protection and to maintaining a healthy environment for future generations[.]”
(Preamble).
• Ecuador
o “The State shall adopt adequate and cross-cutting measures for the mitigation of
climate change, by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and air
pollution; it shall take measures for the conservation of the forests and vegetation;
and it shall protect the population at risk.” (Art. 414).
• Thailand
o “National reform in various areas shall be carried out to at least achieve the following
results . . . having a water resource management system which is efficient, fair and
sustainable, with due regard given to every dimension of water demand in
combination with environmental and climate change.” (Sec. 258(g)(1)).
• Tunisia
o “The state guarantees the right to a healthy and balanced environment and the right to
participate in the protection of the climate. The state shall provide the necessary
means to eradicate pollution of the environment.” (Art. 45).
• Venezuela
o “It is a fundamental duty of the State, with the active participation of society, to
ensure that the populace develops in a pollution-free environment in which air, water,
soil, coasts, climate, the ozone layer and living species receive special protection, in
accordance with law.” (Art. 127).
• Vietnam
o “The State has a policy to protect the environment; to manage and effectively and
stably use natural resources; to protect nature and biodiversity; to take initiative in
prevention and resistance against natural calamities and respond to climate change.”
(Art. 63(1)).
Recap
Climate rights include commitments by governments to ensure that people will enjoy a safe and
stable climate as well as other rights which are not explicitly focused on the climate but have the
effect of guaranteeing action by states to address climate change.
Climate rights are frequently premised on other fundamental rights in order to address climate
change.
Climate rights include both substantive obligations to ensure just outcomes are reached and
procedural obligations to ensure the people impacted by climate change have an opportunity to
receive information, participate in decisions that affect climate rights and to have remedies for
climate rights violations.
Climate rights are described by international, regional, and national human rights as well as
environmental instruments and norms.
12
Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]
1. As used throughout this course, climate rights refer to
(a) Legal commitments that people will enjoy a safe and stable climate as well as other
rights that are not explicitly focused on climate but have the effect of guaranteeing
action to address climate change.
(b) Legal commitments that people will enjoy a safe and stable climate only.
(c) Rights held by animals and the natural world to be protected from human induced climate
change.
(d) The specific right to live in a world with less than 1.5 degrees C of warming since the
pre-industrial era.
2. Match the climate change impact to the most affected substantive climate right:
Climate change impact Affected substantive right

Increasingly frequent and severe floods, Right to Life
storms, wildfires, droughts, and other extreme
weather events create direct and indirect
danger to human lives.
Increased sea level rise threatens to displace Right to Liberty
people from where they would otherwise
prefer to live.
Climate change endangers supplies of food Right to Health
and clean water and places greater stress on
health systems.
Climate change threatens to force people Rights to an Adequate Standard of Living
around the world to leave cultural significant
areas, lose ecosystem services on which
communities depend for sustenance and
identity, and to cope with myriad other
unwanted and dangerous disruptions to daily
life.
3. Climate rights may be found in which of the following sources of legal obligation?
(a) International agreements

(b) Regional agreements
(c) Domestic laws
(d) all of the above
4. How many nations around the world have guaranteed their citizens a constitutional right
to a healthy environment or have recognized comparable rights through legislation, court
decisions, or by ratifying regional agreements?
(a) None
(b) 32
13
(c) Nearly 100
(d) Over 150
Additional Resources
Report: New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism.
Report: Climate Change and Human Rights.
Report: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Relationship
between Climate Change and Human Rights.
Report: Safe Climate: A Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the
Environment
Report: Climate Change, Coming Soon to a Court Near You: National Climate Change Legal
Frameworks in Asia and the Pacific
Report: Climate Change, Coming Soon to a Court New You: International Climate Change Legal
Frameworks
Fact Sheet: Frequently Asked Questions on Human Rights and Climate Change
Online Resource: United Nations Universal Human Rights Instruments.
Book: Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism
14
Lesson 2: Litigation’s Role in Protecting Climate Rights
Learning Objectives
• Understand the role of litigation in government action on climate change throughout the
world
• Describe why people turn to litigation to spur more ambitious or more rapid action to address
climate change
• Explain the key challenges and opportunities that climate litigants typically encounter
15
Introduction
This lesson explores the context and background of climate rights litigation and addresses
the role that these cases play in the larger context of climate governance.
Governments around the world have taken steps to address climate change but their
actions to date remain inadequate to meet the scale and scope of the climate crisis. As a result,
individuals, groups, communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), business entities,
and subnational governments have turned to courts. Climate rights cases give litigants an
opportunity to seek more ambitious government action to address climate change, through
declarations of fundamental climate rights and obligations, enforcement of existing climate laws,
and remedies for violations of climate rights. But litigants filing these cases must address several
common questions about who the appropriate party is to bring a case, what authority courts have
to remedy climate harms, the role of courts relative to other governmental bodies, and the proper
sources of enforceable climate rights and obligations.
This lesson explores the reasons people around the world use litigation to enforce their
climate rights and also flags the key challenges that legal claims must overcome in order to
achieve a meaningful remedy.
Climate rights litigation, as used throughout this course, refers to cases before courts,
administrative bodies, and other adjudicatory venues where the parties bringing the cases assert
that inadequate climate mitigation or adaptation measures violate their fundamental, human, or
constitutional rights.
16
Amplifying and Accelerating National Ambition
Recent years have seen

governments and private
organizations around the world
make ambitious pledges to mitigate
and adapt to climate change. But
these steps remain inadequate to
keep the world on track to avoid the
worst climate impacts. In several
cases, litigants have turned to courts
to demand governments increase
climate ambition, or to accelerate
implementation of climate goals.
These cases paradigmatically argue
that a government’s failure to
implement an aggressive,
enforceable, and time-bound plan to
address climate change is a
violation of fundamental human
rights guaranteed by international
agreements, international law,
national constitutions, or all three.
Source: UNEP Emissions

Gap Report 2020 (Figure ES.5)
Judicial Recognition of the Links Between Inadequate National Ambition and Violations of
Human Rights
Shrestha v. Shrestha v. Friends of Friends of ENVironneme ENVironneme
Office of the Office of the the Irish the Irish nt JEUnesse v. nt JEUnesse v.
Prime Prime Environment Environmen Canada Canada
Minister et Minister et al. CLG v. t CLG v.
al. Gov’t of Gov’t of
Ireland Ireland
A Nepali “Countries Friends of “The An “The facts
citizen filed around the the Irish Parties environmental outlined in this
an world have Environment accept the nonprofit proceeding
application been affected (FIE), filed gravity of brought a reflect an
to compel by harsh suit arguing climate climate intentional
the consequences that the Irish change, change-related fault on the
government of climate government’ including class action part of the
of Nepal to change. Nepal s 2017 the risks to against the Canadian
enact a new has also been National current Canadian government
climate facing the Mitigation generations government on for more than
change law, woes of Plan was of severe, behalf of 25 years
17
alleging that climate inconsistent pervasive Québec regarding
the change and with and citizens aged climate change
government’ the citizens Ireland's irreversible 35 and under, and the
s failure to are affected human impacts . . . arguing that impact of this
adequately .... rights .” the fault on the
address [M]easures to commitment government of lives of young
climate combat s because it The issues Canada Quebeckers.
violated the climate was not at stake and violated The
right to a change designed to rights plaintiffs’ Government of
dignified life through achieve affected are rights by Canada
and a sustainable substantial the “right to setting a has behaved
healthy social and short-term life; right to greenhouse irresponsibly
environment economic emissions bodily gas reduction and has failed
. development reductions. integrity; target to take action
activities have right to an insufficient to to prevent the
been outlined, environmen avoid serious threat
implementatio t consistent dangerous posed to its
n of national with human climate change people by
adaptation dignity; impacts and by climate
policy by right to lacking an change. These
merging it respect for adequate plan failures
with private and to reach its constitute an
development family life greenhouse infringement
agenda, and home.” gas emission of
investment in target. its citizens’
green energy fundamental
generation, rights,
making the especially the
management right to life
of natural and security of
resources the youngest
climate generations.”
friendly, and
drafting
national
strategy for
carbon trade
within 2012
AD, have
been
committed.
However,
those aims are
yet to be
fulfilled.”
18
Holding Governments Accountable for Meeting the Goals They Set
Another key reason that climate advocates turn to the courts is to enforce climate laws
and policies adopted by countries. These cases typically address situations where a country has
adopted a climate goal but has failed to take real steps to implement that goal, failed to take
appropriate steps to adapt to the changing climate, or has enacted other policies which contradict
its climate goals. Frequently, these cases challenge the approval of a specific project or policy.
Additional examples of cases of each type are discussed in later lessons.
Selected Cases Challenging Projects or Policies that are Inconsistent with Climate Goals
Plan B Earth and Plan B Earth and Ali v. Federation of Ali v. Federation of
Others v. Secretary of Others v. Secretary of Pakistan Pakistan
State for Transport State for Transport
Friends of the Earth “The Secretary of A 7-year-old girl in “[A] stable Climate
and Plan B Earth State . . . has assessed Karachi, Pakistan is system with an
filed suit against the the [Airport the named petitioner atmosphere void of
Secretary of State for Expansion] against a in this challenge dangerous levels of
Transport (United climate target rejected alleging that, among CO2 is an essential
Kingdom) alleging by the international other actions, her component of life and
that he inadequately community as province’s approval critical to the
considered the effects inadequate and of a plan to develop Fundamental Rights
of climate change dangerous. It is the coal fields in the of the Pakistani
impacts in regard to Claimant’s case that Thar desert violates people. The
the expansion of that failure breaches: constitutionally cumulative effects of
Heathrow . . . (iii) the Human protected CO2 emissions from
International Airport. Rights Act 1998 fundamental rights. the continued burning
They argue that his (“HRA 1998”), in of fossil fuels will
failure violated, particular by make life
among other laws, disproportionately inhospitable and
the Human Rights interfering with the unsafe, for those
Act 1998. right to life, the right alive now and for
to property, the future generations, as
right to a private and the adverse impacts
family life and the of Climate Change
rights of those with increase in severity
certain protected and frequency.”
characteristics to be
free from
discrimination.”
Challenges Facing Climate Litigants
Despite clear, wide ranging scientific evidence of climate impacts, and studies linking
climate impacts to human activity with a high degree of confidence, litigants face myriad
challenges to enforce climate rights in court. This section addresses two of the most important
challenges that litigants must overcome: standing and separation of powers.
19
Courts in many jurisdictions, before considering the substantive claims raised, must
determine whether the parties attempting to bring a legal action have “standing” to do so.
“Standing,” means that a person is legally able, as determined by jurisdictional rules, to bring a
case before a court. Definitions of standing, and levels of scrutiny in determining standing, vary,
but generally include requirements that the parties bringing a case have a genuine and current
interest in the outcome, that the dispute is one a court has a means of resolving, and that the court
has some authority to order a remedy that would benefit the claimant.
Asserting standing can be a major obstacle for plaintiffs seeking to bring a climate rights
lawsuit. For instance, some jurisdictions require a plaintiff to demonstrate standing by asserting a
defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff injury. Proving that plaintiff suffered from a violation of
rights due to a defendant’s actions can be difficult in climate rights cases. Consider, for example,
when multiple sources of emissions were the cause of an extreme weather event, which a
plaintiff is alleging the continuation of violates their climate rights; some courts may not
consider the injury to be directly from the defendant. Furthermore, some jurisdictions require a
plaintiff to show that they were injured in a unique way, suffering an injury which members of
the general public do not share. This can prevent a climate rights case from being heard on the
merits, as climate rights violations may not be considered distinct and unique injuries. As the
lessons that follow demonstrate however, litigants around the world have found success in
having their cases heard despite these obstacles.
A second key challenge that climate rights cases face is a principle known as the
“separation of powers” or “balance of powers.” Generally, in jurisdictions that mandate a
separation of powers between the courts and other bodies of the government, a court may not
hear claims if reaching a decision would require the court to act in a way reserved for other
functions of the state. For example, in some jurisdictions, a court cannot decide among multiple
permissible outcomes (which is usually a function of a legislative body) and may not hear claims
if the only remedy available is to create or reform national policy (usually an executive or
legislative function). As a result, courts in these jurisdictions are oftentimes extremely reluctant
to hear or decide cases which may require ordering other branches of government to adopt
specific climate change policies.
Still, litigants around the world have had success in obtaining orders requiring other
branches of government to implement existing policies. Other cases have resulted in orders
requiring governments to do more to address climate change, while leaving the details of how to
do so to legislative branches of government. In Urgenda v. Kingdom of Netherlands, for
example, the court ordered the government to comply with its order mandating mitigation
measures, noting that “[i]f legislative measures are required to achieve such compliance, it is up
to the State to determine which specific legislation is desirable and necessary.”2
The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States sought to have the courts compel the federal
U.S. government to do more to address climate change, but an appellate court concluded that the
courts do not have the authority to grant the remedy the plaintiffs were seeking: “The plaintiffs
2
Urgenda Foundation v. The State of The Netherlands, Case No. 19/00135 at ¶ 8.1 (20 December 2019)
(unofficial translation from the court).
20
have made a compelling case that action is needed; it will be increasingly difficult in light of that
record for the political branches to deny that climate change is occurring, that the government
has had a role in causing it, and that our elected officials have a moral responsibility to seek
solutions. . . . We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the
political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of
the political branches through the ballot box. That the other branches may have abdicated their
responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-
intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.” Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1175
(9th Cir. 2020). In her dissent, Judge Staton wrote that even a small step by the courts toward
slowing climate change would help, and plaintiffs could therefore pursue their claim: “The
majority portrays any relief we can offer as just a drop in the bucket. . . . But we are perilously
close to an overflowing bucket. These final drops matter. A lot.”3
Recap
Climate rights litigation is based on the assertion that inadequate climate mitigation or adaptation
measures violate people’s fundamental, human, or constitutional rights.
People pursuing government action on climate change may turn to courts to seek orders requiring
governments to take on more ambitious climate goals, undertake adaptation measures, and
accelerate the implementation of existing climate measures.
Even where climate impacts are clear and the violation of rights due to climate impacts are
articulated, climate rights litigants face legal obstacles to overcome on the path to having a claim
heard on its merits by the courts. These include establishing standing and avoiding separation of
powers concerns.
1. Climate rights litigation against governments commonly falls into which of the following
categories/paradigms?
(a) Cases challenging inadequate national ambition in setting climate goals as a violation of
human rights
(b) Cases challenging a failure to meet or seriously implement nationally adopted climate
goals
(c) Neither (a) nor (b)
(d) Both (a) and (b)
2. Which is of the following is not a reason why standing can be a major obstacle for
plaintiffs seeking to bring a climate change lawsuit?
(a) Proving that a plaintiff suffered, including from a violation of rights, due to a defendant’s
actions can be difficult, for example, where multiple sources of emissions are involved.
3
(Staton, J. dissenting) (emphasis in original).
21
(b) Some jurisdictions require a plaintiff to show that they were injured in a unique way
which other members of the general public do not share.
(c) In most countries, only the government has standing to bring climate change
lawsuits
(d) None of the above.
3. True or False: because of the principle of “separation of powers” courts are often
extremely reluctant to order other branches of government to adopt specific climate
change policies. (True)
Report: Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review.
Report: Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Snapshot.
Report: Climate Change, Coming Soon to a Court Near You: Climate Litigation in Asia and the
Pacific and Beyond
Article: César Rodríguez-Garavito, Human Rights: The Global South’s Route to Climate
Litigation, 114 AJIL UNBOUND 40 (2020).
Article: Jacqueline Peel & Hari Osofsky, A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation? 7
TRANSNAT’L ENVTL. L. 37, 40 (2018).
22
Lesson 3: Challenging Ambition, Existence, and Implementation of
National Mitigation and Adaptation Targets
Learning Objectives
• Describe cases that seek to increase national ambition on climate change, or to see that
ambitious national policies are carried out.
• Understand how cases challenging national mitigation targets in national courts differ from
other types of climate rights cases.
23
Introduction
Governments and their agencies are vulnerable to a range of legal actions challenging
failures to adopt climate change mitigation goals, the level of ambition those goals demonstrate,
and the way that climate policies are implemented. These cases often argue that governments
have violated plaintiffs’ human rights by failing to adopt adequate climate change policy or by
failing to fully implement adequate policies. In most instances, these cases are able to cite
government’s commitments to upholding fundamental human rights, and then articulate how
failing to address climate change is inconsistent with those commitments.
When plaintiffs bring a matter before national courts they may seek an order requiring the
government to take greater climate action. These plaintiffs usually must demonstrate that they
have standing and can run into obstacles where courts are reluctant to order other branches of
government to act. And even where plaintiffs do succeed in compelling government to act, courts
may leave the details of climate policy up to legislative branches of government.
Cases of this kind have been successful at spurring faster and more ambitious climate
action by governments. Many of these cases depend on unique commitments made by the
domestic government to climate rights and therefore do not create judicial precedent that is
enforceable beyond national borders. These cases are still valuable as persuasive authority to
other courts, which can have an impact on how judges view governments’ commitments to
fundamental rights relating to climate change when faced with the questions in their jurisdiction.
Persuasive authority from national climate rights decisions can further develop the body of law
that describes the intersection of climate change and human rights.
Cases Challenging National Mitigation and Adaptation Targets
• Urgenda v. Kingdom of Netherlands

o In Urgenda a Dutch NGO filed suit seeking to require the Dutch government to do
more to address climate change. They argued that by failing to adequately address
climate change the Dutch government violated its obligations under the European
Convention on Human Rights and under Dutch law. In 2019 the Dutch Supreme
Court upheld lower court decisions that required the government to take steps to
reduce emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, but left the decision-making to
the government to determine exactly which steps it would take to meet the target.
• Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan
o In 2015 Ashgar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, sued the national government for failing
to implement the adaptation measures outlined in the National Climate Change Policy
of 2012 and Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030).
Leghari argued that the government’s failure to implement the adaptation measures
violated both his right to life and to human dignity. In its decision, the court
acknowledged that the right to life includes the right to a healthy and clean
environment. As a remedy, the court created a Climate Change Commission to
monitor the government’s progress on key climate change adaptation actions.
• Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland
24
o Friends of the Irish Environment filed suit arguing that the Irish government’s
approval of the National Mitigation Plan in 2017 violated, among others, the
European Convention on Human Rights—particularly the right to life and the right to
private and family life. In 2020 the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs did
not have standing to bring human rights claims under the ECHR. The National
Mitigation plan was nonetheless quashed due to bases in Irish law.
• Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al.
o In 2017 Padam Bahadur Shrestha filed an application to compel the government of
Nepal to enact a new climate change law. Shrestha alleged that the government’s
failure to adequately address climate change violated the right to a dignified life and
the right to a healthy environment, both of which are guaranteed in the Constitution
of Nepal. In its decision, the Supreme Court treated climate change as an existential
threat undermining the constitutional right to life and ordered the government of
Nepal to enact a new climate change law. The Court held that the new law must,
among other provisions, mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, reduce
consumption of fossil fuels, and develop instruments to compensate those harmed by
environmental degradation.
• Juliana v. United States
o In Juliana a group of young persons filed a suit alleging that the United States’ role in
causing dangerous concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide violated their
constitutional rights, including (among others) the rights to life, liberty, and property.
After receiving a favorable decision from the lower court, an appellate court reversed
and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claim.
• Family Farmers and Greenpeace Germany v. Germany
o In 2018 a group of farmers and their families filed an action seeking an order to
compel the government to meet its climate mitigation goals. They alleged that the
government’s failure violated their rights to life, health, occupational freedom, and
property guaranteed by the Constitution. The court ultimately dismissed the case and
concluded that in this instance the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the
government had violated their constitutional rights, but did note that inadequate
climate policy could constitute a violation of constitutional rights, holding that the
issue is judicially reviewable.
• Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France
o In 2019 four French nonprofits filed a lawsuit asking the court to order the French
government takes action on climate change. They argued that failing to do so violated
French law and the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the
nonprofits argued that the government’s failure to address climate change violated
their rights to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as their
rights to life and family life. The court ultimately decided to recognize that France’s
inaction in addressing climate change caused injury to the plaintiffs and awarded a
token one euro in damages, but the decision did not order the government to take
stronger climate action.
25
Looking Ahead to New Actions
A wide range of recent legal actions seek to build on the successes that some cases have
had toward seeking greater climate ambition. The examples below are not exhaustive and are
included to highlight the many groups filing cases throughout the world. While the cases cite a
variety of sources of rights, they are linked by a common thread: asserting that a government’s
failure to fully and promptly address climate change is a violation of fundamental human rights.
• Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil

o In 2020, the Institute of Amazonian Studies filed an action against the Federal
Government of Brazil seeking recognition of a fundamental right to a stable climate
for present and future generations under the Brazilian Constitution. The institute
seeks an order compelling the federal government to comply with national climate
law, alleging that by failing to do so the government has violated the plaintiffs’ rights
to a balanced environment and a healthy quality of life.
• VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others
o In 2014 a nonprofit organization of concerned citizens in Belgium filed a suit alleging
that Belgian law requires the Belgian government's approach to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions to be more aggressive. They call for reductions of 40% below 1990
levels by 2020 and 87.5% below 1990 levels by 2050, arguing that by failing to do so
the government is violating their rights under the European Charter of Human Rights
and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France
o In 2019 the municipality of Grande-Synthe sued the French government for
insufficient action on climate change. The suit alleges that the national government’s
failure to ensure adequate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions violates, among
other laws, the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Friends of the Earth Germany, Association of Solar Supporters, and Others v. Germany
o In 2018 the nonprofit organization Friends of the Earth Germany filed a constitutional
complaint against the German government alleging that the government’s failure to
meet its own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals violated plaintiffs’
fundamental rights
Failures to Adapt and Implementation of Adaptation Measures
Preventing the worst consequences of climate change will require both mitigation steps to
ensure that the effects of climate change are kept to a minimum and adaptation measures to deal
with the impacts of climate change that it is too late to prevent. Countries around the world, even
the richest and most serious about climate mitigation, have not moved quickly to enact adequate
legal and institutional frameworks for climate change adaptation. The failure to implement
climate adaptation measures may prove difficult for these countries in the future as they attempt
to mobilize resources to meet inevitable climate impacts. Often, the countries most
geographically vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are also the countries that face the
most severe adaptation challenges.
26
Climate rights can be violated both by governments’ failures to enact policies and
strategies for climate change adaptation, and by the government’s inadequate implementation of
existing adaptation measures. Failing to adapt can violate many of the same climate rights as
failing to mitigate. Depending on the situation of the person bringing a failure to adapt case,
those failures may include, among others: not diverting resources to the benefit of people most
endangered by climate change; not adapting legal and institutional frameworks to address the
displacement climate impacts may cause; and not taking appropriate steps to defend coastal areas
from sea level rise and extreme weather events. Where these failures cause the impacts of
climate change to be felt more severely than they otherwise would, the failures may constitute
violations of the rights to life, self-determination, dignity, and more.
Governments’ implementation of adaptation measures may similarly violate climate

rights. One concern is that adaptation programs may benefit one group at the expense of another,
potentially violating one group’s right to equal treatment under the law and against the principle
of non-discrimination. Adaptation measures that are undertaken without meaningful public
participation may violate a host of procedural rights including, for example, rights to
participation in environmental decision making, informational rights, and in the case of
Indigenous Peoples, the right to free and prior informed consent.
Few cases thus far have focused on government’s adaptation measures as the primary
issue to bring to the courts. As climate impacts accelerate and worsen, adaptation cases may
increase in frequency. The cases that have been brought to date emphasize the critical
importance of appropriate adaptation planning and, in some instances, show petitioners citing
climate rights as a basis for action:
• In Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and Others, a petitioner filed an action alleging
that a disastrous landslide and flood would have been mitigated if the government effectively
implemented its own disaster management law and had been adequately prepared for the
occurrence. The Court declined to order any new government action, deferring in part to
existing administrative agencies, but agreed with the petitioner that “it is absolutely
necessary for the [disaster management authorities] to be ever vigilant and ensure that if any
unfortunate disaster strikes there should be total preparedness and that minimum standards of
relief are provided to all concerned.”
• In Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, a petitioner argued that the government’s failure to
implement adaptation measures violated both his right to life and to human dignity.
• In a 2020 complaint to United Nations special rapporteurs, Indigenous Peoples in Alaska and
Louisiana alleged that the by failing to address climate impacts making their lands
uninhabitable, the U.S. government is violating their rights to life, health, housing, water,
sanitation, a healthy environment, and food, among others.
Recap
Cases that seek to increase the ambition or speed with which national mitigation targets are
implemented generally rely on national commitments to enforce human rights obligations.
Unlike cases in international fora, these matters can produce binding orders that require
governments to take action on climate change. To reach that outcome, plaintiffs have to
27
overcome legal barriers, such as demonstrating standing and overcoming a court’s reluctance to
order other branches of government to act.
Adaptation cases may challenge governments’ failure to enact measures to adequately adapt to
the inevitable impacts of climate change, or a failure to effectively implement adaptation
measures.
1. Which of the following are true about cases in national courts that seek to increase
national ambition on climate change or ensure that ambitious national policies are carried out?
Choose all the apply.
• Plaintiffs usually must demonstrate that they have standing.

• Plaintiffs may encounter obstacles where courts are reluctant to order other branches
of government to act.
• If plaintiffs do succeed in a court order compelling the government to act, the court
may nonetheless leave the details of amending climate policy to the legislative branches
of government.
2. True or False: Litigants seeking greater climate ambition or the fulfillment of existing
targets may base their claims on a variety of sources of rights. Nevertheless, most of
these cases essentially assert that a government’s failure to fully and promptly address
climate change is a violation of fundamental human rights. (True)
3. Which of the following is false of cases seeking greater national climate ambition or
fulfillment of existing national climate targets?
(a) These cases base their claims on a variety of sources of rights.

(b) Many of these cases assert that failing to fully and promptly address climate change is a
violation of fundamental human rights.
(c) These cases can produce binding orders that require governments to take action on
climate change.
(d) These cases have no relationship to national commitments in the form of laws and
policies enforcing human rights.
Online Resource: Climate Change Laws of the World.
Article: Annalisa Savaresi & Juan Auz, Climate Change Litigation and Human Rights: Pushing
the Boundaries, 9 CLIMATE LAW 244 (2019).
Article: Annalisa Savaresi, Plugging the Enforcement Gap: The Rise and Rise of Human Rights
in Climate Change Litigation 77 QUESTIONS OF INT’L L. 1 (2021).
28
Article: Shaikh Eskander & Sam Fankhauser, Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
national climate legislation, 10 NAT. CLIMATE CHANGE 750 (2020).
29
Lesson 4: Challenging Specific Policies or Projects
Learning Objectives
• Describe cases challenging specific projects or policies pursued or authorized by national

governments.
• Examine and understand how these cases differ from cases that challenge the adequacy of
national mitigation targets.
• Understand the opportunities and challenges created by attribution science.
30
Introduction
Litigants around the world have filed cases arguing that specific policies or project
approvals have the effect of worsening climate change impacts. Some of these cases also argue
that a policy or project ignores opportunities to adapt to climate impacts, therefore violating
human rights by subjecting persons to the impacts of climate change which could have been
lessened or avoided. In many of these cases, but not all, the claim involves the impacts of
extracting fossil fuels. This lesson highlights several of the cases and further explains how these
differ from the cases discussed in the other lessons.
Challenging Specific Policies or Projects
Cases that challenge specific mitigation or adaptation projects or policies face many of
the same challenges as cases that address national climate change mitigation targets, but
plaintiffs have different arguments to raise. Because project and policy specific cases usually
have a narrower context, the harms that plaintiffs suffer in these cases may be more easily
distinguished from harms felt by the public at large. Accordingly, standing may not be a
significant obstacle in these cases, as it can be in cases that challenge nationwide policies.
However, plaintiffs in cases challenging specific projects and policies may have a harder
time demonstrating the link between a local project and climate change. Climate attribution
science is a robust and growing body of scholarship that describes both the connections between
human activity and climate change and the connections between climate change and specific
climate impacts. While plaintiffs can use attribution science to describe how smaller, local
projects play a role in global climate change, some courts—especially in North America, Europe,
and Australia, have been skeptical of cases that depend on making that link. In contrast, some
courts, including in South Asia, have avoided addressing the trickier questions of causation by
incorporating a government’s sustainable development commitments into domestic law, thereby
creating an obligation to avoid climate harms that is independent of proving that negative
consequences have already been linked to past activity.
Finally, project- and policy-specific cases typically seek orders compelling governments
to reverse course in some planned action. Litigants bringing these cases still have to overcome
procedural obstacles identified in previous lessons,but they may have an easier time doing so
where the court is asked to review local action rather than national policy.
The cases described in this lesson are thematically linked but represent a diverse array of
examples of the legal theories being presented before courts all around the world. And while not
every case results in the plaintiff obtaining what they seek, some do—and new cases are being
filed that build on the theories articulated in earlier lawsuits.
• Plan B Earth v. Sec’y of State

o In Plan B Earth v. Sec’y of State plaintiffs argued that the United Kingdom’s Airports
National Policy Statement, which allowed an additional runway at London’s
Heathrow Airport, failed to take into account the Paris Agreement, non-CO2 warming
impacts of aviation, and the effects the new runway would have on climate change
beyond 2050. The plaintiffs argued that failing to take these commitments and
31
impacts into account violated the Human Rights Act (1998) and, specifically, violated
the “right to life, the right to property, the right to a private and family life and the
rights of those with certain protected characteristics to be free from discrimination.”
After initially succeeding in halting progress toward the new runway, the plaintiffs’
case ended when the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision because,
among other reasons, the Paris Agreement did not constitute national policy.
• Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd.
o In Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. The plaintiffs
brought an action alleging that by flaring off methane from gas production activities
on the Niger Delta, Shell had violated the plaintiffs’ rights to a clean and healthy
environment protected under the Constitution of Nigeria and the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights. Under section 46 of the Nigerian Constitution, any
person whose fundamental rights are violated can bring an action seeking a remedy of
that violation. The Federal Court agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that their “rights
to life and dignity of human person have been and are being wantonly violated and
are continuously threatened with persistent violation by these gas flaring activities.”
• Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
o In Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan, citizens sued the government of
Pakistan and several agencies for failing to protect national forests under national
laws designed to protect and restore forests. Failing to protect the forests, the
plaintiffs argued, violated their rights to liberty, dignity, of access to public places of
entertainment, and of provision of available leisure places. The court ultimately
agreed, ordering, among other things, that “the applicable laws . . . shall be
implemented in letter and spirit in order to plant, protect and preserve the forest.”
• Greenpeace et al. v. Austria
o In Greenpeace et al. v. Austria Greenpeace and over eight thousand individual
petitioners filed an action seeking the Austrian Constitutional Court to invalidate tax
exemptions that eased air travel but not travel on railways. They argued that by
tending to increase climate change impacts, the exemptions violated their rights to life
and to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court
ultimately found the case inadmissible because the petitioners did not have standing.
• Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy
o In Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, environmental
groups challenged Norway’s decision to approve a block of oil and gas extraction
licenses for sites in the Barents Sea. They argued that approval of the licenses
violated the Norwegian Constitution’s guarantee of a “right to an environment that is
conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are
maintained.” After the plaintiffs found mixed success in lower courts, the Supreme
Court ultimately upheld the licenses, reasoning that future emissions from exported
oil bore too tenuous a link to the parties’ constitutional rights to merit rescinding the
licenses.
• D. G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. v. Government of Punjab
o In D. G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. v. Government of Punjab, a cement company
owner challenged a government decision to bar the construction or expansion of
cement plants in environmentally fragile zones. The company argued that the decision
violated its constitutional right to freedom of trade, business, and profession. The
32
Supreme Court upheld the decision, noting the risks that cement plants pose to
groundwater, among and other harmful environmental impacts. The Court
emphasized the use of the precautionary principle in protecting fundamental rights
and also recognized the need to protect the rights of nature itself.
• In re Greenpeace Southeast Asia
o In In re Greenpeace Southeast Asia, environmental organizations and individual
Filipino citizens petitioned the Philippine Commission on Human Rights to
investigate “the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification
and the resulting rights violations in the Philippines.” The commission, which does
not have enforcement powers, announced that major fossil fuel companies have
obligations under domestic human rights law to address climate change impacts, but
the commission’s final report is not yet publicly available.
• Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc
o In Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell, plc, an NGO filed a case alleging that
Shell’s contributions to climate change violate its duty of care under Dutch law and
human rights obligations. They argue that, among others violations, Shell’s
contributions violate the plaintiffs’ rights to life and to family life as described in
Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On May 26,
2021, the Court ordered Shell to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to
2019 levels, across all activities including both its own emissions and end-use
emissions.
• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India
o In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India an Indian citizen challenged the
environmental clearance for an airport in the State of Goa. The plaintiff argued that
the government failed to adequately consider environmental impacts during the
project’s assessment process. In early 2020, after the government submitted
environmental impact information and made a commitment to make the airport a
“zero carbon airport operation,” the Supreme Court lifted a temporary suspension of
the environmental clearance and allowed the airport project to go forward.
• Henares v. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
o In Henares v. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board a group of
petitioners sought an order compelling government departments to require public
utility vehicles to use compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel. They argued that
emissions from diesel-powered vehicles cause pollution that can lead to serious health
problems and damage to the economy, and infringed on the right to clean air found in
the Philippine Constitution, case law, and the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. The
Court ruled that the petitioners had standing, reaffirmed the fundamental right to a
balanced and healthful ecology, but denied the order citing, among other concerns,
the need for separation of powers between the courts and other branches of
government.
Looking Ahead to New Actions
Several more recently filed cases embrace similar legal theories and may further expand
the body of precedent in this area of climate rights litigation.
33
Highlighted Recently-filed and Pending Project- and Policy-Specific Cases
Ali v. Federation of Pakistan Youth Verdict v. Waratah Greenpeace Mexico v.
Coal Ministry of Energy and
Others
A 7-year-old girl in Karachi, An environmental Greenpeace Mexico filed a

Pakistan is the named organization, Youth Verdict, complaint alleging that a new
petitioner in this challenge filed an objection to a energy program promotes
alleging that, among other proposed coal mine in fossil fuel use at the expense
actions, her province’s Australia. The plaintiffs of investments in renewable
approval of a plan to develop allege that by contributing to energy, greenhouse gas
coal fields in the Thar desert climate change the mine will emissions reduction, and
violates constitutionally infringe on their right to life, adaptation. The program
protected fundamental rights the protection of children, and violates human rights, the
including the right to life, the right to culture as group argues, including the
security of person, dignity, protected by the Australian right to a healthy
and protection of property law. environment and right of
rights. access to electricity based on
renewable sources. In late
2020, the Court temporarily
suspended the program
pending resolution of the
case.
Recap
Litigants around the world have filed cases arguing that specific policies or project approvals
violate climate rights including, for example, cases that aim to keep fossil fuels from being
extracted or airports from being constructed.
Project- and policy-specific cases face many of the same challenges as cases that address
national climate change mitigation targets, and also may have a harder time linking the specific
action to global climate change.
Climate attribution science is a robust and growing body of scholarship that plaintiffs can rely on
to demonstrate the link between local projects and global climate change.
1. Which of the following are true of cases that challenge specific mitigation or adaptation
projects or policies? Pick all that apply.
(a) The harms that plaintiffs in these cases suffer may be more easily distinguished
from harms felt by the public at large
(b) These cases often aim to prevent fossil fuels from being extracted
34
(c) Plaintiffs in these cases may have a hard time demonstrating the connection between
a local project and climate change as a whole
(d) Only government officials can challenge specific policies or projects
(e) These cases typically seek orders compelling applicable government bodies to
reverse course on planned actions
2. True or False: Some cases challenging specific projects or policies have argued that a
right to personal dignity would be infringed. (True)
3. True or False: Some cases challenging specific projects or policies have argued that a
right to family life would be infringed. (True)
Article: Michael Burger et. al., The Law and Science of Climate Change Attribution, 45 COLUM.
J. ENVTL. L. 57, 65 (2020).
Online Resource: Climate Attribution Database.
35
Lesson 5: Cases in International Fora
Learning Objectives
• Understand why litigants may choose to bring a case before an international body rather than
a national court.
• Articulate the strategic purpose for which litigants may bring a case to an international body.
• Describe examples of international climate rights litigation.
36
Introduction
In recent years litigants have increasingly brought cases in international fora. These
adjudicatory venues offer opportunities that are not always available in national courts.
First, even though most nations have signed on to treaties and other instruments that
guarantee equal access to effective judicial processes to seek remedies for violations of climate
rights, in practice national courts are not always receptive to climate cases or effective at holding
domestic governments accountable. Second, for the reasons described in the previous lessons,
national courts may be reluctant to issue orders forcing other branches of government to act.
Third, litigants can choose to bring cases in international fora as a strategy to effect change in the
body of international law. Even though decisions of international courts often do not compel
national governments to act, those decisions influence how other stakeholders—including judges
in national courts—view the landscape of climate change law. Persuasive opinions from
international bodies can be used in other advocacy contexts, both formal and informal, even if
those opinions do not create enforceable obligations.
This lesson describes several significant cases in international fora.
Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s Petition
In 2005 Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuk woman and Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference (ICC) filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(IACHR). The petition argued that acts and omissions of the United States caused climate
impacts that violated human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. The
petitioners asked the commission to recommend that the United States adopt mandatory
measures to limit its greenhouse gas emissions, consider the impacts of those emissions on the
Arctic in evaluating all major government actions, and that the United States implement a plan to
protect Inuit culture and adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change.
Testimony of Martin Wagner before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

March 1, 2007: “[R]ecognizing the serious human rights implications of the effects of global
warming, States have an international obligation to address their role [in] global warming,
whether through their own activities or by the activities of private actors within their
jurisdiction.”.
Ultimately, the IACHR declined to process the petition, stating that the petitioners had
provided insufficient information for the IACHR to determine whether the alleged facts would
characterize a violation of human rights. Even though the case did not result in a clear statement
recommending the United States change course on climate change, it is widely credited as the
beginning of a global conversation on how climate change impacts interact with human rights.
Former Special Rapporteur John Knox on the 2005 ICC Petition: “[T]he Inuit petition
was the first harbinger of a sea-change in how the international community thinks about climate
change.”.
37
Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Concerning the
Interpretation of Article 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights
In November 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued an

Advisory Opinion concluding that the right to a healthy environment is a human right under the
American Convention on Human Rights. The opinion, issued in response to a request from
Colombia, acknowledges that climate change is widely understood to interfere with the
enjoyment of human rights and discusses the responsibility of governments for the significant
environmental damage occurring within and beyond their borders.
IACHR Opinion OC-23/17: “To respect and to ensure the rights to life and to personal
integrity of the persons subject to their jurisdiction, States have the obligation to prevent
significant environmental damage within or outside their territory and, to this end, must regulate,
supervise and monitor activities within their jurisdiction that could produce significant
environmental damage.”
Armando Ferrão Carvalho and Others v. The European Parliament and the Council
In 2018 a group of families from Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Kenya, Fiji,
and the Swedish Sami Youth Association Sáminuorra, brought an action in the EU General
Court. Their case sought to compel the European Union to adopt more ambitious greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals. The families argued that the existing target—reducing domestic
emissions by 40% of 1990 levels by 2030—would not be enough to avoid climate impacts that
threatened the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights of life, health, occupation, and property. Those
rights are protected by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and other international
instruments.
The court ultimately rejected the families’ case as inadmissible because they lacked
standing. Specifically, the court found that climate change harms are felt similarly by every
member of the public, and therefore the plaintiffs did not have unique harms that would give
them standing to address those harms in court. The court reasoned that even though small
variations in how climate impacts are felt may exist, that difference would not give this group the
ability to have their case decided on the merits: “the fact that the effects of climate change may
be different for one person than they are for another does not mean that, for that reason, there
exists standing to bring an action against a measure of general application.”
Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al.
In 2019 several children filed a petition alleging that by making insufficient cuts to
greenhouse gases and failing to encourage the world’s biggest emitters to curb carbon pollution
Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey violated their rights under the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Their petition asks the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child to declare that each of the respondents violated their rights by perpetuating climate
change, and to recommend actions for respondents to address climate change mitigation and
adaptation. In October, 2021, the Committee found the case inadmissible as they viewed the
petition has not exhausted domestic remedies (one of the requirements for admissibility);
38
however, they regardless ruled that countries bear cross-border responsibility for impact of
climate change.
Wrap Up
Cases before international adjudicatory bodies generally do not have the potential to
create enforceable obligations to tackle climate change, but they can shape the development of
law in a way that will help future cases in national courts. The cases described in this lesson
produced statements and conclusions that strengthen the growing body of law recognizing how
climate harms impact human rights.
Advancing the Conversation on Human Rights and Climate Change

Inuit Circumpolar Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 Armando Ferrão Carvalho
Conference’s Petition and Others v. The European
Parliament and the Council
“It is a fundamental principle “This Court has recognized “It is true that every
of international law that the existence of an individual is likely to be
States have a duty to prevent undeniable relationship affected one way or another
and remedy violations of their between the protection of the by climate change, that issue
international obligations. In environment and the being recognised by the
the case of global warming, realization of other human European Union and the
this obligation does not end rights, in that environmental Member States who have, as
with the responsibility to degradation and the adverse a result, committed to
address greenhouse gas effects of climate change reducing emissions.”
emissions caused by the affect the real enjoyment of Judgement of the General
government itself but extends human rights. In addition, . . . Court at ¶ 50.
to a responsibility to regulate the different categories of
private actors within State rights constitute an indivisible
jurisdiction who are whole based on the
contributing to the problem.” recognition of the dignity of
Testimony of Martin Wagner, the human being. They
March 1, 2007. therefore require permanent
promotion and protection in
order to ensure their full
applicability; moreover, the
violation of some rights in
order to ensure the exercise of
others can never be justified.”
(¶ 47).
Recap
Litigants are increasingly bringing cases before international adjudicatory bodies because,
among other reasons, these fora may be more receptive to climate cases than national courts, less
reluctant to opine that legislative branches of governments must act, and able to draft persuasive
legal opinions with an impact on future cases.
39
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s 2005 petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights is among the earliest pieces of advocacy to link climate change to human rights and is
credited with generating significant interest in that intersection.
1. Why might a litigant bring a case before an international body rather than a national
court? Choose all that apply.
(a) In practice national courts are not always receptive to climate cases or effective at
holding domestic governments accountable.
(b) National courts may be reluctant to issue orders forcing other branches of
government to act.
(c) Litigants may aim to effect change in the body of international law.
2. True or False: The requirement of standing can be an obstacle when bringing case
before an international body as well as before a national court. (True)
3. True or False: Opinions from international bodies can be persuasive in other advocacy
contexts. (True)
Hari M. Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation as Pluralist Legal Dialogue, 43 STAN. J. INTL’L L.
181, 218 (2007).
Kenneth W. Abbott, Strengthening the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change 3
TRANSNAT’L ENVTL. L. 57, 74 (2014).
Online Resource: Human Rights Council resolutions on human rights and climate change.
40
Lesson 6: Cases Addressing the Rights of Persons, Groups, and
Peoples in Vulnerable Situations
Learning Objectives
• Describe similarities and differences between cases brought by or on behalf of persons,

groups, and peoples in vulnerable situations vis-a-vis other climate rights cases.
• Identify significant cases brought by children and youth, Indigenous Peoples, and other
groups situated differently from the public at large.
• Identify trends in the prevalence of cases brought by or on behalf of persons, groups, and
peoples in vulnerable situations.
41
Introduction
The final lesson in this course explores cases filed by or on behalf of persons, groups, and
peoples in vulnerable situations. In most instances these cases assert similar theories as cases in
previous sections, and additionally premise their arguments on uniquely held rights. Because
these cases are brought by or on behalf of persons situated differently than the whole public
(many of whom are in vulnerable situations), these litigants may have different arguments to
raise about standing, separation of powers, and the relief that they seek—but the challenges
remain much the same. Three types of these cases are explored here: cases by and on behalf of
young persons, Indigenous Peoples, and persons experiencing displacement.
Children and Youth
Climate rights cases brought by or on behalf of young persons typically argue that
because many of the impacts of climate change are going to grow more severe over time, young
people are going to be subjected to more climate harms than the public at large. These are by far
the most frequently filed types of cases on behalf of groups in vulnerable situations. Although
some of the cases cite the Convention on the Rights of the Child, most assert the same rights
asserted by nearly all climate litigants—the right to life and, where applicable, the right to a
healthy environment.
• ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada

o In ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada, an environmental nonprofit organization
brought an action against the Canadian government alleging that by setting a
greenhouse gas reduction target insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change
impacts and by lacking an adequate plan to achieve that target, Canada failed to meet
its obligations to protect the fundamental rights of young people under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The
court dismissed the lawsuit because the proposed class of plaintiffs was based on an
arbitrarily-decided cut-off of persons aged 35 and younger.
• Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others
o In Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others, a group of youth
plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that their government’s failure to reduce
deforestation in the Amazon violated their rights to a healthy environment, life,
health, food, and water. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Colombia recognized that
the rights to life, health, minimum subsistence, freedom, and human dignity are
substantially linked to the environment and the ecosystem, and accordingly ordered
the government implement a plan to halt deforestation in the Amazon.
• Neubauer, et al. v. Germany
o In Neubauer, et al. v. Germany, a group of German youth challenged Germany’s
Climate Protection Act as insufficient to avoid climate consequences that would
violate their fundamental rights as protected by the German Constitution.
Specifically, they argued that the law’s insufficient ambition violated their rights to
dignity, life, and physical integrity, among others. The Constitutional Court accepted
the plaintiffs’ arguments, and ordered the legislature to set clear provisions for
emissions targets consistent with limiting warming to well below 2°C.
42
• Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment
o In Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment, eight young people filed an
action in Australia's Federal Court to block a coal project, arguing that the Minister
for the Environment has a common law duty of care for young people and that
digging up and burning coal will exacerbate climate change and harm young people
in the future. The Federal Court of Australia recognized a duty of care to avoid
causing personal harm to children but declined to issue an injunction to force the
Minister to block the coal mine extension.
• Oposa v. Factoran
o In Oposa v. Factoran, a group of young persons brought a case against the
Philippines’ Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
requesting that the Secretary cancel all existing timber license agreements in the
Philippines and deny any new timber licenses. They argued that their constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology entitled them to protection by the State, and
that continuing deforestation infringes their right. The court agreed in part on
preliminary motions, recognizing the concept of intergenerational responsibility and
stating that “every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm
and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology.” After the
Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower courts to proceed the plaintiffs
ultimately abandoned the case before reaching a substantive verdict.
Recently filed cases continue to expand the geographic distribution of cases on behalf of
young persons and also expand the list of rights plaintiffs are arguing have been violated by
failures to address climate harms.
• Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking to Redress Violations

of the Rights of Children in Cité Soleil, Haiti
o A group of Haitian children petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights to redress human rights violations stemming from toxic trash disposal, which
causes short and long term health harms most acutely affecting children and is made
worse by climate change's exacerbation of waterborne diseases. The petitioners allege
violations of their rights under the American Convention on Human Rights, including
the rights of the child, right to dignity, right to live in a healthy environment, and
right to judicial protection.
• Youth for Climate Justice v. Austria, et al.

o Six Portuguese young persons filed a lawsuit alleging that 33 European countries
have violated their human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change.
They allege that by failing to take more ambitious climate action the countries have
violated their rights to life, privacy, and to non-discrimination, all protected by the
European Convention on Human Rights. As young people, they note, they stand to
experience the worst effects of climate change.
• Álvarez et al v. Peru
o A group of Peruvian youth filed a lawsuit against Peru, alleging that their government
has inadequately addressed climate change by failing to halt deforestation in the
Amazon rainforest. The plaintiffs argue that the government’s failure more severely
43
affects people born between 2005 and 2011, whose futures are severely compromised
due to the climate crisis. They allege violations of their rights to enjoy a healthy
environment, to life, water, and health, which are protected by the Peruvian
constitution, the Additional Protocol of the American Convention on Human Rights,
and international agreements.
• Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea
o Nineteen youth activists in South Korea filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court
alleging that the nation’s climate change law is insufficient to protect their
fundamental rights, including the right to life and to a clean environment.
• Mathur, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
o Seven Canadian young people filed a lawsuit alleging that the province of Ontario
violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom failing to meet its responsibility
to address climate change. They argue that the government’s failure violates, among
others, their rights to life, liberty, and security of person.
• La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen
o A group of Canadian young persons filed an action against their government alleging
that Canada’s contributions to climate change violate their rights under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedom, and the rights of future Canadian children. A lower
court ruled against the plaintiffs, concluding that the claims allege “an overly broad
and unquantifiable number of actions and inactions” on the part of the government.
The matter is now on appeal.
Indigenous Peoples
Like the cases brought by young persons, cases brought by or on behalf of Indigenous
Peoples face obstacles common to nearly all climate cases, but these plaintiffs have different
arguments to raise. In two of the cases described below, the groups that brought lawsuits are
residents of the Arctic, which is experiencing faster and more severe climate change impacts
than most areas in the world. In addition, where communities are more directly dependent on
ecosystem services, plaintiffs can articulate a close link between climate-driven changes to the
environment and the ways those changes are uniquely felt by the community. These claims touch
on governments’ failures to mitigate the drivers of climate change as well as governments’
failures to adequately adapt to foreseen climate impacts.
• Hearing on Climate Change Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

o In July 2019 a group of organizations representing Indigenous Peoples, women,
children, and rural communities in Ecuador, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Peru,
Brazil, Honduras, México, and Costa Rica requested a hearing before the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights to address the impacts of climate
change on these communities. The organizations urged the Commission, among
other priorities, to recognize the climate crisis as a priority that threatens human
rights and ecosystems, to call on states to target more ambitious climate action, to
urge states in the region to take action to stop activities that aggravate climate
change and threaten the effective enjoyment of human rights, and to promote
energy transition models that guarantee economic, social, cultural, and
44
environmental rights, especially of Indigenous Peoples, children and youth,
women, and rural communities.
• Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking Relief from Violations
of the Rights of Arctic Athabaskan Peoples Resulting from Rapid Arctic Warming and
Melting Caused by Emissions of Black Carbon by Canada
o Earthjustice, on behalf of the Arctic Athabaskan Council, filed a petition alleging
that Canada’s ineffective regulation of black carbon emissions threatens the
Athabaskan people’s human rights. The petition notes that the Arctic is
experiencing disproportionately high rates of warming and alleges that this
warming is creating ecological disruptions that make hunting and fishing more
difficult and dangerous, changing culturally significant regional topography, and
compromising the Athabaskans’ ability to maintaining cultural traditions that
depend on the environment. These impacts, they argue, constitute violations of the
Athabaskans’ rights to enjoy the benefits of their culture, to property, to the
preservation of health, and to their own means of subsistence as established by the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
• Lho’imggin et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen
o In early 2020 an Indigenous Group filed a suit alleging that the Canadian
government's insufficient action to address climate change has violated their
constitutional and human rights. They argue that they have already experienced
significant warming effects on their territories and can expect to experience
negative health impacts due to climate change. They contend that these impacts
violate their rights to life, liberty, and security of person.
Persons experiencing or expecting displacement
Several cases have been filed seeking to address the unique climate harm suffered by
people experiencing climate displacement. Although these cases make up a small percentage of
climate rights cases to date, the prominence of government obligations to protect people from
both transboundary and internal displacement suggest that these cases may soon become a far
more visible part of the climate litigation landscape.
In Ioane Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment, the Supreme Court of New Zealand heard a Kiribati citizen’s petition to receive
refugee status on the basis of rising sea level having forced him off the island. The court denied
the petition but reasoned that “environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other
natural disasters could . . . create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person
jurisdiction.” In a subsequent complaint before the U.N. Human Rights Committee, Teitiota
contended that New Zealand violated his right to life by denying his refugee status. The
committee found that “the effects of climate change in receiving states may expose individuals to
a violation of their rights under articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights],”
but dismissed the complaint, noting that it would only overturn a state’s decision if the process
by which the decision was reached was clearly arbitrary, a manifest error, or a denial of justice.
Notably, two committee members dissented, with one arguing that “New Zealand’s action is
more like forcing a drowning person back into a sinking vessel, with the ‘justification’ that after
45
all there are other voyagers on board. Even as Kiribati does what it takes to address the
conditions; for as long as they remain dire, the life and dignity of persons remains at risk.”
In early 2020 Indigenous Peoples in Alaska and Louisiana submitted a complaint to ten
United Nations Special Rapporteurs arguing that the U.S. government has failed to address
climate-driven violations of their rights to life, health, housing, water, sanitation, a healthy
environment and food, among others. They argue that their land is becoming uninhabitable
because of both sea-level rise and increasingly frequent and sever extreme weather events. To
date the Special Rapporteurs have not acted on the complaint. Although the complaint process is
a diplomatic one that does not include a mechanism to force the respondents to act, the process
may elicit an explanation and could result in voluntary action on the governments’ part.
Finally, in 2019 a group of eight Torres Strait islanders filed a petition to the United
Nations Human Rights Committee alleging that Australia is violating their climate rights by
failing to address climate change. Their low-lying island communities are highly vulnerable to
sea level rise, storm surge, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and other climate impacts. By
adopting insufficient mitigation targets and failing to provide adequate funding for coastal
resilience measures, they allege, Australia has violated their right to culture, to life, and to be free
from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, and home.
An Expanding Range of Theories
The last three cases discussed in this lesson highlight the ever-expanding range of
theories that plaintiffs can use to bring climate rights cases and seek remedies for their unique
injuries before courts around the world.
• Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council and Others
o In Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council, a
group of Swiss seniors argued that the government had violated their right to life by
failing to take effective steps to reduce global temperature increases. The court
dismissed the case, finding that the seniors did not have a unique injury that would
grant them standing to pursue the claim.
• Maria Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan et al.
o A group of women filed a lawsuit on their own behalf and on behalf of future
generations alleging that Pakistan’s inaction on climate change violated their
fundamental rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment previously
recognized in Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan. In addition, they argue that
because climate change disproportionately affects women, the government’s inaction
violates their rights to equal protection and non-discrimination.
• Mex M. v. Austria
o An Austrian citizen with a temperature-dependent form of multiple sclerosis (MS)
filed a lawsuit against the Austrian government for violations of his human rights. He
alleges that the majority of MS patients suffer a temperature-dependent sensitivity
that causes patients like the petitioner to lose more muscular control as temperatures
go up. By failing to more rapidly and adequately combat climate change, the Austrian
46
government has violated his constitutional right to family and private life under the
European Convention on Human Rights.
Recap
Cases filed by persons with unique exposure to climate harms face similar challenges as all
climate rights cases, but litigants in these cases may have different arguments available to
address those obstacles.
Cases brought by and on behalf of young persons are a significant and growing set of climate
rights cases worldwide.
Cases that address climate displacement are a small portion of all climate rights cases thus far,
but more such cases are likely to be filed as the impacts of climate change worsen.
Plaintiffs are continually asserting new theories that expand the notion of which climate impacts
violate fundamental human rights.
1. In what ways are cases filed by or on behalf of persons, groups, and peoples in vulnerable
situations different from other climate rights cases? Choose all that apply.
• Persons, groups, and peoples in vulnerable situations may premise their arguments on
uniquely held rights.
• Persons, groups, and peoples in vulnerable situations may have different arguments to
raise about standing, separation of powers, and the relief that they seek.
• Persons, groups, and peoples in vulnerable situations cannot cite the same sources of human
rights that apply to the public as a whole.
2. Which is the most common type of cases filed on behalf of groups in vulnerable
situations in recent years?
(a) Cases by and on behalf of young persons.

(b) Cases by and on behalf of Indigenous Peoples.
(c) Cases by and on behalf of persons experiencing displacement.
(d) Cases by and on behalf of people working in threatened occupations.
3. True or False: Litigants arguing cases by and on behalf of young persons may face the
difficulty of deciding how to define “young people.” (True)
4. True or False: All cases by and on behalf of young persons rely on the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. (False)
47
5. True or False: Cases by and on behalf of persons experiencing or expecting
displacement may soon become a far more prominent component of the climate litigation
landscape. (True)
Report: Annalisa Savaresi & Joana Setzer, Mapping the Whole of the Moon: An Analysis of the
Role of Human Rights in Climate Litigation (2021).
Article: Isabelle Gerresten, How youth climate court cases became a global trend, CLIMATE
HOME NEWS (APR. 30, 2021).
Article: M. Alexander Pearl, Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, and the Global Climate Crisis,
53 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 713 (2018).
Article: Ama Ruth Francis, Migrants Can Make International Law, 45 HARVARD ENVTL L. REV.
99 (2021).
48

Workbook - Climate Litigation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workbook - Climate Litigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introductory Course on

Climate Rights Litigation

Lesson 1: Sources and Substance of Climate Rights ...................................................................... 4

• Define and understand climate rights

Substance of Climate Rights

Climate rights typically place obligations on governments to prevent environmental harm

How Does Climate Change Threaten Certain Substantive Climate Rights?

Sources of Climate Rights

“A human rights-based approach should be integrated in any climate change adaptation

“Hard” international instruments refer to instruments which are legally binding on

• Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

International Declarations, Norms, and “Soft Law” Instruments

In addition to treaties, agreements, and covenants, a range of “soft law” instruments

• Universal Declaration on Human Rights

• The 1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and

Regional Declarations, Norms, and Other “Soft” Instruments”

• European Social Charter

1. As used throughout this course, climate rights refer to

Climate change impact Affected substantive right

(a) International agreements

Report: New Frontiers in Environmental Constitutionalism.

Report: Climate Change and Human Rights.

Online Resource: United Nations Universal Human Rights Instruments.

Book: Judicial Handbook on Environmental Constitutionalism

Recent years have seen

Source: UNEP Emissions

Challenges Facing Climate Litigants

Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]

Report: Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review.

Report: Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Snapshot.

Cases Challenging National Mitigation and Adaptation Targets

• Urgenda v. Kingdom of Netherlands

• Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil

Failures to Adapt and Implementation of Adaptation Measures

Governments’ implementation of adaptation measures may similarly violate climate

Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]

• Plaintiffs usually must demonstrate that they have standing.

(a) These cases base their claims on a variety of sources of rights.

Online Resource: Climate Change Laws of the World.

• Describe cases challenging specific projects or policies pursued or authorized by national

Challenging Specific Policies or Projects

• Plan B Earth v. Sec’y of State

Looking Ahead to New Actions

A 7-year-old girl in Karachi, An environmental Greenpeace Mexico filed a

Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]

Online Resource: Climate Attribution Database.

This lesson describes several significant cases in international fora.

Inuit Circumpolar Conference’s Petition

Testimony of Martin Wagner before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

In November 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued an

Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al.

Advancing the Conversation on Human Rights and Climate Change

Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]

• Describe similarities and differences between cases brought by or on behalf of persons,

Children and Youth

• ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada

• Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking to Redress Violations

• Youth for Climate Justice v. Austria, et al.

• Hearing on Climate Change Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Persons experiencing or expecting displacement

An Expanding Range of Theories

Knowledge Refresher [Correct answers in bold, where applicable]