Abstract
This chapter serves as an introduction to the comparative climate change litigation exercise present in this book, which stems from efforts leading up to the 2018 International Academy of Comparative Law Colloquium. The chapter is based on several fact scenarios established by the editors, in order to develop a comparative look at climate change across a variety of countries. This effort will ultimately lead to the development of the Climate Change Litigation Initiative (C2LI), an online platform intended to further explore the state of climate change litigation in national courts. This introductory chapter summarises the findings from the book in general and specifically highlights the different scenarios on which the individual chapters are based. It further explores in detail the issues of standing, grounds and remedies in climate change litigation, and highlights a number of crosscutting issues discussed throughout the book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
UNFCCC, Decision 1/CP.21, ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’, FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1.
- 2.
Moncel and van-Asselt (2012).
- 3.
As has taken place in the US with the stance of the Trump administration on climate change, see Mehling (2017); and in Brazil under the Bolsonaro administration.
- 4.
Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (2015).
- 5.
Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015).
- 6.
- 7.
Useful information can be found in the litigation database complied by the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in collaboration with Arnold & Porter, LLP. The database is available at http://wordpress2.ei.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/.
- 8.
World Health Organization, ‘Climate Change and Health’.
- 9.
IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, s 2.3.
- 10.
Ibid s.3.2.
- 11.
Ibid s.3.
- 12.
UNEP ‘Emissions Gap Report’ (2018), pp. xiv–xxiii.
- 13.
Ibid p. xiii.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Bouwer (2018), p. 491.
- 17.
Carnwath (2016), p. 8.
- 18.
When an organisation brings a claim on behalf of individuals, the nature and objectives of the organisation will be scrutinised from a standing perspective. This is what happened in the Urgenda case, where the Court pointed to the aims of the Urgenda Foundation, which referred to its goal of advancing a more sustainable society. Interestingly, the Court elaborated on what a sustainable society meant, linking it to the famous definition of sustainable development stemming from the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future”, World Commission on Environment and Development, ‘Our Common Future’ (1987), which includes the rights not only of current, but also of future generations. In doing so, it is unclear whether the Court embraced standing for future generations, but it clearly opened the door to considering long-term negative effects stemming from climate change, which will inevitably impinge upon the (human) rights of future generations. For a more detailed discussion of the Urgenda case and standing issues, see Sect. 1 in the chapter on The Netherlands in this book.
- 19.
For example, in Switzerland a claimant has to demonstrate that the decision of the public actor affects them more than how it affects the general public. In other words, it puts on the individual a heavy burden that can be sometimes very difficult to meet. See Sect. 3 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book for a more detailed discussion.
- 20.
See Sect. 5.2 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 21.
Ibid.
- 22.
Ibid.
- 23.
See Sect. 4.1 below in this chapter.
- 24.
See Shaw (2008), p. 131.
- 25.
Canada can be considered a dualist country and the government passed the Kyoto Implementation Act as a means to comply with its international obligations, but then decided to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol altogether. Two cases were brought against the Canadian government arguing that, by withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, it had breached its international law obligations. The Court decided against the individuals referring mainly to the executive prerogative and claiming that separation of powers was not breached in this case. See Sect. 2.2 in the chapter on Canada in this book for a more in-depth discussion. Another case in which an individual brought a case against a domestic piece of legislation that implemented the country’s international obligations is the Thomson case in New Zealand. Here, the plaintiff challenged the Climate Change Response Act 2002 claiming that the publication of a new IPCC report required the government to revise its national climate change target. The government responded by saying that such a decision fell within its discretionary power, but the Court ruled against the State making it clear that the release of new science in the form of a new IPCC report called for a revision. The Court ultimately did not enforce its decision due to the change in government in 2017 and its position that it would revise its climate change targets. See Sect. 2 in the chapter on New Zealand in this book for more detail.
- 26.
In the Thomson case the plaintiff argued that the NDC was illegal because a number of elements had not been taken into consideration, including the negative effects of climate change on Tokelau, a non-self-governing territory of New Zealand, and the ineffectiveness of the country’s NDC from a global perspective. Ibid.
- 27.
The lack of climate law has been mentioned as one of the reasons for the difficulties faced by Earthlife Africa in South Africa. See Sect. 2 in the chapter on South Africa in this book for more detail.
- 28.
See the London School of Economics Database on Climate Laws available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/climate-change-laws-of-the-world/.
- 29.
- 30.
In a case against the Norwegian government in which the latter would have breached its own international climate change obligations, as enshrined in its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, by granting licences for deep-sea extraction in the Barents Sea. The Court did not entertain the international law dimension of the case and did not consider the Paris Agreement in the interpretation of the government’s obligations. It decided against the claimants suggesting a strong deference towards the government. See Sect. 3.2.1 in the chapter on Norway in this book for more detail.
- 31.
The climate change decision in South Africa is relevant because in this case the Court did consider that the obligation to undertake an environmental impact assessment under South African law had to be interpreted taking into account the participation of the country in the Paris Agreement. See Sect. 2 in the chapter on South Africa in this book for more detail.
- 32.
The unsuccessful case in the UK, Plan B Earth, also hinged upon human rights grounds. The claimants considered the failure of the UK Secretary of State to revise upwards the ambition of emission reduction targets to constitute a human rights violation. See Sect. 2.1 in the chapter on the United Kingdom in this book for an in-depth discussion of this case.
- 33.
An important case was lodged in Switzerland by a group of elderly women who maintained that Swiss climate change law was not strong enough and would, ultimately, lead to a violation of their right to life as well as their human rights enshrined in articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimants argued that Switzerland was in breach of its human rights obligations because it did not set a target that would achieve “well below 2” and because in a global question like climate change the margin of appreciation for the State was much less. See Sect. 2 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book for a detailed discussion.
- 34.
Ibid; in particular, see art. 190 of the Swiss Constitution in this respect.
- 35.
In Canada there could be a plethora of other human rights that are particularly relevant for indigenous peoples’ claims. For example, equality rights and freedom of religion have been used in environmental claims. Although unsuccessful, they could show what lies ahead. For a discussion on equality and religion in this context, see Sect. 3.2.2 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 36.
Procedural human rights, such as the right to be consulted are becoming relevant grounds for action in cases brought by indigenous peoples in Canada. Ibid.
- 37.
This is the case in the Quebec Charter, which opens the door to human rights cases against private actors. Ibid.
- 38.
In the Urgenda case the main question become what amounts exactly to the duty of care. The Urgenda legal team examined numerous sources of law (European human rights law, the Dutch Constitution and international law) that provided the contours of the duty of care. The latter amounts to an obligation upon a State to take mitigation measures to prevent dangerous climate change. See Sect. 3.2.2 in the chapter on The Netherlands for a discussion.
- 39.
For a discussion of the legal standards under tort law, see e.g. Sect. 5.2 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 40.
This was the case in the United Kingdom. See Sect. 3.2 in the chapter on the UK for a more detailed discussion.
- 41.
Frequently this type of case will be public nuisance case. Ibid.
- 42.
See note 112 in the chapter on Canada in this book. A case of this nature, extending the arguments of duty of care from the State to a private actor, was filed in April 2019 in The Netherlands against Royal Dutch Shell. See http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/ for details of the case. Royal Dutch Shell whose emissions amounted to 1.7% of global emissions between 1988 and 2015, ranking as the 9th biggest global contributor to climate change, has been found guilty in tort cases in the past and asked to pay damages to Nigerian farmers for the environmental deterioration caused by oil spill damages in Nigeria. See Sect. 4.2 ‘Litigation against major GHG emitters’ in the chapter on the Netherlands in this book for a history and more detail regarding Royal Dutch Shell.
- 43.
This case is discussed briefly in footnote 96 in the chapter on the United Kingdom in this book.
- 44.
If we take Quebec as an example, fault means acting not in accordance with the normal behaviour of a “prudent and diligent actor placed in the same circumstance”. See the chapter on Canada for more detail, specifically note 103. Fault could also be construed as an abuse of rights.
- 45.
See, for example Sect. 4.1.3 in the chapter on Canada in this book for a discussion about damages.
- 46.
See note 146 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 47.
See Sect. 5.1.1 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 48.
Judicial review in common law countries bestows power on the judiciary to review executive and administrative actions and decision for legality and appropriateness; it is “the means by which executive action is prevented from exceeding the powers and functions assigned to the executive by law and the interests of the individual are protected accordingly.” Church of Scientology v Woodward; see also https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-principle-11.
- 49.
The UK has seen a flurry of such cases, with cases brought by individuals against, for example, the planned construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport. The UK has also seen judicial review used to challenge developments that would lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, such as the planning of wind farms, showing that litigation can also be used to put other interests before climate change mitigation. See Sect. 2.2 in the chapter on the United Kingdom in this book for more detail on these examples. In Canada a recent case, unrelated to climate change, has opened the possibility of judicial review on grounds of lack of social acceptability in cases where the local public does not accept a specific project.
- 50.
In the Plan B Earth case the claimants argued that the Secretary of State was acting irrationally in not revising upward the level of emission reduction targets. See note 33 in the chapter on the United Kingdom in this book.
- 51.
In Canada, for example, no cases have been brought before a court under this doctrine, but the British Columbia Islands Trust Act embodies the public trust doctrine very well. BC Islands Trust Act, section 3 states “The object of the trust is to preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of British Columbia generally, in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, other persons and organizations and the government of British Columbia.” Islands Trust Act, RSBC 1996, c. 239, s. 3.
- 52.
The Wai 2607 was a claim brought by Maori representatives against the State for the lack of climate change action, which had negatively affected Maori livelihoods, ecosystems and culture. See Sect. 2.2 in the chapter on New Zealand in this book for a more detailed discussion of this case.
- 53.
An example of this is enshrined in Article II of te Tiriti in New Zealand, which guarantees “The full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess as long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession.” Ibid.
- 54.
This was the case in the Netherlands, where claimants wanted to stop the construction of coal power plants, but the way the energy sector was regulated under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme prevented a case being brought on climate change grounds. Since the plants were planned close to high biodiversity sites (Natura 2000 sites), the claimants alleged that the construction and operation of the coal power plants had to be further investigated in order to comply with the government’s environmental and biodiversity obligations. Ultimately, this led only to a delay in the construction of the plants, which were built nonetheless, but they demonstrate that an individual can bring the breach of non-climate change legal obligations as a strategy to delay or block altogether the authorisation by public bodies of activities that will lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. See Sect. 3.3 in the chapter on The Netherlands in this book. In South Africa, the decision to link climate change to air pollution most likely played an important role in the Court’s decision to accept the requirement of a climate change impact assessment for the authorisation of a socio-economic activity (coal power plant) that affects negatively both air pollution, with knock on effects on human health, as well as climate change. For more detail, see Sect. 3.1 in the chapter on South Africa in this book.
- 55.
In some countries, like in Switzerland, an individual can bring a case against a public actor for a breach of a law in one of these non-climate fields. In the Swiss case of A. et al. v. Linthwerk for example, claimants argued that a flood protection plan was insufficient to protect their agricultural land. Although the claim was properly brought, the Court ruled against the claimants, stating the flood protection plan was sufficient. For a more detailed discussion of this case, see Sect. 4 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 56.
Environmental crimes take the form of illegal trade in wildlife or hazardous materials or waste, illegal logging, etc. and there is growing concern about environmental crimes affecting air quality (e.g. through deforestation), damage to soil and water, and biodiversity loss. See the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute for a discussion about international and transnational environmental crimes, http://www.unicri.it/topics/environmental/. For examples of domestic criminal law related to environmental and/or climate change laws, see the chapters in this book on France, specifically Sect. 3.2.2; Canada, particularly footnote 3 and Sect. 4.2.4; Bolivia, Sects. 3.2 and 3.3; and China, Sect. 3.3.
- 57.
For a discussion of these complexities, see Sect. 3.4 in the chapter on Norway in this book.
- 58.
Anti-competitive grounds are discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.2.4 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 59.
Interestingly, the largest Norwegian pension fund mentions ‘childrens rights’ in connection with climate change in its annual report, appearing to open the door to the possibility of invoking the principle of inter-generational equity. For an in-depth discussion, see Sect. 3.4.2 in the chapter on Norway in this book.
- 60.
See Sect. 6 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 61.
See note 56 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 62.
See Sect. 3.3 in the chapter on the United Kingdom in this book.
- 63.
Norway is home to the largest sovereign wealth fund and it follows Ethical Guidelines. By following them, Norway has distanced itself from carbon intensive operations, such as the Dakota Access Pipeline in the United States, but has continued investing in companies producing coal in other parts of the world. See (n60) above.
- 64.
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
- 65.
In 2017 ING was brought before the Dutch National Contact Point for allegedly breaching a number of procedural duties including the obligation to disclose current and future greenhouse gas emissions stemming from its operations. The challenge was declared admissible and in April 2019, the NCP issued its first ever final statement requiring ING to bring its investment strategy in line with climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement. See https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/netherlands-national-contact-point-accepts-first-oecd-guidelines-complaint-linked-to-climate-change-against-ing-bank.
- 66.
See Sect. 6 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 67.
There is a good discussion of available remedies in the chapter on Canada in this book. See section 2.2.3 ‘Remedies available under the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter’.
- 68.
This was indeed the case in the unsuccessful Norwegian case where the claimants were seeking a declaration from the Court that the government’s decision to grant permits for offshore oil exploration in the Barents Sea was invalid. For a longer discussion of this case, see Sect. 3.2.1 in the chapter on Norway in this book.
- 69.
In a tort claim like the Urgenda case, the remedy requested by the claimant was along these lines and consisted of encouraging the State to develop a more ambitious climate plan with a legally binding target in line with its duty of care towards its citizens. Urgenda requested the Dutch State to aim for an emission reduction between 25 and 40% in 2020. For an in-depth discussion of the Urgenda case, see the chapter on the Netherlands in this book. A similar approach was taken in the KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case where the claimants requested Switzerland to put in place “adequate” environmental legislation in order to comply with its human rights obligations. “Adequate” was informed by international climate change law and by climate science and a target of “well below 2” was what was being requested. For an in-depth discussion of the KimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case, see the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 70.
See Sect. 4.3 in this chapter.
- 71.
In the Thomson case in New Zealand the remedy that was being asked by the individual was an order by the Court obliging the government to revise national climate change targets following the publication of an IPCC report. A further remedy was sought in this case and that was a declaration of illegality of the government’s decision setting the country’s NDC. For an in-depth discussion of the Thomson case, see Sect. 2.1 in the chapter on New Zealand in this book. The Wai 2607 case called for recommendations to the government for stricter climate policy and action. For an in-depth discussion of the Wai 2607 case, see Sect. 2.2 in the chapter on New Zealand in this book.
- 72.
There is a good discussion of injunctive relief as a remedy in Sect. 4.3 in the chapter on Norway in this book.
- 73.
Along the lines of the Shell case discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.2 in the chapter on The Netherlands in this book. See also (n42) above.
- 74.
In Canada, the Quebec Charter allows for punitive damages against private actors for human rights breaches. See Sect. 3.2.2 in the chapter on Canada in this book, particularly the section ‘Remedies under the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter’.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
Urgenda Decision, Para 4.90; see also the chapter on the Netherlands in this book for an in-depth discussion of the Urgenda case and the Urgenda Decision.
- 78.
- 79.
IPCC—Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (2018a).
- 80.
Griffin (2017).
- 81.
See for example, Heede (2014).
- 82.
Recently uncovered documents show that the oil and gas industry had knowledge of the effects of their industry. See Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) ‘Smoke and Fumes’; see also Robinson and Robbins (1968).
- 83.
See CIEL’s reporting on the relationship between the tobacco and oil industries and their knowledge regarding health effects at https://www.smokeandfumes.org/smoke/moments/15.
- 84.
See (n77) above.
- 85.
See note 27 in the chapter on The Netherlands in this book.
- 86.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); Paris Agreement (n1).
- 87.
Urgenda Decision, Para 2.31; see also (n77) above.
- 88.
See note 20, chapter on Switzerland in this book. For an in-depth discussion of the KimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case, see the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 89.
See Sect. 2 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 90.
- 91.
IPCC (n79) above.
- 92.
For an in-depth discussion of the Thomson case, see Sect. 2.1 in the chapter on New Zealand in this book.
- 93.
Ibid.
- 94.
See Sect. 3.3 above.
- 95.
Urgenda Decision, Para 4.97. See also (n77) above.
- 96.
After the authorities denied the initial request, the Swiss Administrative Court denied the plaintiffs’ appeal and the case is now before the Swiss Supreme Court for consideration. See https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/20343/swiss-seniors-appeal-climate-case-in-federal-supreme-court/.
- 97.
See (n92) above.
- 98.
See Sect. 2 in the chapter on Norway in this book.
- 99.
See Sect. 3.2.1 in the chapter on Norway in this book.
- 100.
Ibid.
- 101.
For a discussion on the financial hurdles faced by claimants in South Africa, see Sect. 4 in the chapter on South Africa in this book.
- 102.
See Sect. 3.2.2 in the chapter on Norway in this book for more detail.
- 103.
For a discussion on the costs of litigation in the UK, see Sect. 1.2 in the chapter on the United Kingdom in this book.
- 104.
See Sect. 4.2 in the chapter on Kenya in this book for a discussion of filing as a pauper in Kenyan courts.
- 105.
See Sect. 3 in the chapter on Qatar in this book.
- 106.
See Sect. 3.3 in the chapter on China in this book.
- 107.
See (n101) above.
- 108.
See (n102) above.
- 109.
See Sect. 5.1.1 in the chapter on Canada in this book.
- 110.
See Sect. 4 in the chapter on India in this book.
- 111.
See Sect. 4 in the chapter on Ukraine in this book for an in-depth discussion of these issues.
- 112.
See Sect. 4.1 in the chapter on the Russian Federation in this book.
- 113.
See Sect. 4 ‘Effective climate change litigation in Qatar: the way forward’ in the chapter on Qatar in this book.
- 114.
See Sect. 2.2 in the chapter on the Czech Republic in this book.
- 115.
See Sect. 3.1 in the chapter on China in this book.
- 116.
See Sect. 4 in the chapter on India in this book.
- 117.
See Sect. 4.1 in the chapter on Kenya in this book.
- 118.
See Sect. 4.3 in the chapter on Kenya in this book for an in-depth discussion of this issue.
- 119.
See (n111) above.
- 120.
As outlined in Sect. 2.3 of this chapter, the book discusses three main types of cases: cases where individuals take a government to Court for its actions or omissions regarding greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change, cases where an individual takes the government or another public authority to Court for authorising an activity that leads to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and cases by individuals against private actors (industry) for operations that lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, including pension and investment funds failing to divest from financing activities that cause climate change.
- 121.
See Table 1 for a full list of countries included in the book.
- 122.
“Current national pledges on mitigation and adaptation are not enough to stay below the Paris Agreement temperature limits and achieve its adaptation goals. While transitions in energy efficiency, carbon intensity of fuels, electrification and land-use change are underway in various countries, limiting warming to 1.5°C will require a greater scale and pace of change to transform energy, land, urban and industrial systems globally (…) Although multiple communities around the world are demonstrating the possibility of implementation consistent with 1.5°C pathways, very few countries, regions, cities, communities or businesses can currently make such a claim.” (IPCC 2018b).
- 123.
Ibid.
- 124.
See for instance, Sect. 2 in the chapter on Switzerland in this book.
- 125.
See for instance, Sect. 3.5 in the chapter on Colombia in this book.
- 126.
The phenomenon of emulation that derives from climate change litigation reveals its transnational character. For instance, attempts such as “The Case of the Century” in France are largely influenced by litigation actions that took place in The Netherlands and before that in the United States with the case labelled the “Climate Case of the Century”. For further information on the cases mentioned above see Singer (2018) and Pochon (2019).
References
Literature
Banda M, Fulton C (2017) Litigating climate change in national courts: recent trends and developments in global climate law. Environ Law Rep 47(2):10121–10134
Bodansky D (2016) The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 25(2):142–150
Bouwer K (2018) The unsexy future of climate change litigation. J Environ Law 30(3):483–506
Burns W, Osofsky H (2009) Adjudicating climate change: state, national and international approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Carnwath L (2016) Climate change adjudication after paris: a reflection. J Environ Law 28(1):5–9
Cox R (2016) A climate change litigation precedent: Urgenda Foundation v the State of the Netherlands. J Energy Nat Resour Law 34(2):143–163
Davoudi S, Crawford J, Mehmood A (2009) Planning for climate change: strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. Earthscan, London
Faure M, Peeters M (eds) (2011) Climate change liability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Heede R (2014) Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Clim Change 122(1–2):229–241
Jordan A et al (2010) Climate change policy in the European Union: confronting the dilemmas of mitigation and adaptation? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Klein D et al (eds) (2017) The Paris Agreement on climate change - analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lin J (2012) Climate change and the courts. Legal Stud 32(1):35–57
Lord R, Goldberg S et al (2011) Climate change liability: transnational law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McCormick S et al (2017) Science in litigation, the third branch of U.S. climate policy. Science 357(6355):979–980
Mehling M (2017) A new direction for US climate policy: assessing the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s Presidency. Carbon Clim Law Rev 11(1):3–25
Moncel R, van-Asselt H (2012) All hands on Deck! mobilizing climate change action beyond the UNFCCC. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 21(3):163–176
Peel J (2017) Climate change litigation: lessons and pathways. Judicial Comm 29(11):99–104
Peel J, Osofsky H (2018) A rights turn in climate change litigation. Transnl Environ Law 7(1):37–67
Rajamani L (2016) The 2015 Paris Agreement: interplay between hard, soft and non-obligations. J Environ Law 28(2):337–358
Rajamani L, Brunnée J (2017) The legality of downgrading nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement: lessons from the US disengagement. J Environ Law 29(3):537–551
Robinson E, Robbins RC (1968) Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants. Final Report and Supplement. Available at https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6852325. Accessed 26 July 2019
Savaresi A, Auz J (2019) Climate change litigation and human rights: pushing the boundaries. Clim Change Law 9:244–262
Shaw M (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Termeer C, Dewulf A, Breeman G (2013) Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems. In: Knieling J, Filho W (eds) Climate change governance. Springer, Berlin
Wilensky M (2015) Climate change in the courts: an assessment of non-U.S. climate litigation. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 26(1):131–179
Treaties, Conventions and Other International References
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr. Accessed 2 July 2019
IPCC (2014) Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2019
IPCC (2018a) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C: Summary for Policymakers. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4556564-Summary-for-Policy-Makers.html#document/p1. Accessed 12 July 2018
IPCC (2018b) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C: Chapter 4 – Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter4_Low_Res.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2019
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/. Accessed 9 July 2019
Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Entered into Force 4 Nov. 2016
UNEP (2017) The Status of Climate Change Litigation, a Global Review. http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2017/05/Burger-Gundlach-2017-05-UN-Envt-CC-Litigation.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2019
UNEP (2018) Emissions Gap Report. http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26895/EGR2018_FullReport_EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 3 July 2019
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) 1771 U.N.T.S. 107, 31 I.L.M. 849. Entered into Force 21 Mar. 1994
UNFCCC (2015) Decision 1/CP.21. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. UN Doc A/42/427 Annex 1
World Health Organization, ‘Climate Change and Health’. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health. Accessed 7 May 2019
Case Law and Legislative Resources
A. et al. v. Linthwerk, FSC 1C_148/2008 (Switzerland)
Church of Scientology v Woodward (1982) 154 CLR 25, 70 (Brennan J) (USA)
Islands Trust Act. RSBC 1996, c. 239 (United Kingdom)
Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015). http://wordpress2.ei.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/ashgar-leghari-v-federation-of-pakistan. (Pakistan)
Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (2015). http://wordpress2.ei.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/. (The Netherlands)
Online Resources
Australian Law Reform Committee. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-principle-11. Accessed 14 July 2019
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) ‘Smoke and Fumes’ reporting at https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/16. Accessed 23 July 2019
Griffin P (2017) The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017. Carbon Disclosure Project. https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772. Accessed 20 July 2019
London School of Economics Database on Climate Laws. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/climate-change-laws-of-the-world. Accessed 15 July 2019
Pochon M (2019) Two million signatures in support of French climate litigation ‘Case of the Century’. Notre Affaire A Tous. https://notreaffaireatous.org/press-release-two-million-signatures-in-support-of-french-climate-litigation-case-of-the-century. Accessed 8 Sept 2019
Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in collaboration with Arnold & Porter, LLP. http://wordpress2.ei.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation. Accessed 15 July 2019
Singer P (2018) ‘Trial of the century’ as American group asks court to rule on US climate inaction. Shanghai Daily. https://archive.shine.cn/opinion/foreign-perspectives/Trial-of-the-century-as-American-group-asks-court-to-rule-on-US-climate-inaction/shdaily.shtml. Accessed 8 Sept 2019
United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. http://www.unicri.it/topics/environmental. Accessed 22 July 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sindico, F., Mbengue, M.M., McKenzie, K. (2021). Climate Change Litigation and the Individual: An Overview. In: Sindico, F., Mbengue, M.M. (eds) Comparative Climate Change Litigation: Beyond the Usual Suspects. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 47. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46882-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46882-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46881-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46882-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)