roposed solutions to the climate crisis are wide-ranging, contentious, and often difficult to enforce. The Loss and Damage agenda which dominated COP27 led to the creation of a fund to provide support for vulnerable countries, primarily those in the Global South, that are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. However, the success of this development was tempered by weak target setting on phasing out fossil fuels, and a lack of ambition to meet Paris Agreement targets of limiting global temperatures to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The presence of fossil fuel representatives at successive COPs and the controversial Coca-Cola sponsorship of COP27 has invited criticism from activists, who accuse large corporations of greenwashing. The announcement that the presidency of COP28 in Dubai will be held by Sultan al-Jaber, the UAE special envoy for climate change and the managing director of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. has been met with intense backlash from civil society groups that believe the COP process has been hijacked by fossil fuel lobbyists.
Turning to Litigation to Further the Climate Change Cause
Consequently, activists have been turning to climate change litigation as an alternative means of tackling climate inaction by both states and corporations, and for establishing clarity and agreeing standards by which inaction can be assessed. A study by the London School of Economics found that the cumulative number of climate change related cases has more than doubled since 2015, with a total of over 2000 cases having been filed. Roughly 25% of these cases were filed between 2020 and 2022, demonstrating the increasing numbers of groups and individuals using domestic legal frameworks to hold governments and corporations accountable for breaching climate related commitments, and for inflicting environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.
Significant climate-related cases include Dooh v. Shell, which centered on the corporate liability of Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell and its subsidiary company, the Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria (SPDC) for an October 2004 oil spill in the Niger Delta. Despite the case against a multi-billion dollar multinational being taken by local Nigerian farmers and fisherfolk affected by the spills, the Dutch court found SPDC liable for the damages caused by the oil spill and were ordered to compensate Dooh and two others.
The success of the Dooh case was compounded by the case taken by Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) against Shell. In 2021, the lower court of The Hague ruled that Royal Dutch Shell’s policies in relation to CO2 emissions were too vague, and have been ordered to reduce carbon emissions by 45% before 2030. Additionally, a case won by Climate Case Ireland in 2020 found that the Irish government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate to reach its set goal of a low carbon economy by 2050, and violated both Irish law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Environmental Rights as Human Rights
Among the slew of climate-related cases filed globally is an emerging trend of connecting human rights law and environmental law, and in particular a theme of seeking clarity on the obligations of states and corporations in relation to climate action. Between 2015 and mid-2020, 40 cases relating to human rights and climate change were brought to national and international courts. One such case is the ongoing Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 other states, brought by six Portuguese young people to the European Court of Human Rights. The case rests on Articles 2 (the right to life), 8 (the right to privacy) and 14 (the right not to experience discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and argues that multi-state inaction on climate change falls short of commitments made in the Paris Agreement, and impacts the rights of young people and of future generations. This case raises serious questions regarding the interpretation of the convention and whether climate change falls within its remit.
The issue of clarity is a crucial element of an ongoing campaign for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states and private actors to address human rights issues created by climate change. The campaign, founded in the Pacific Islands, led by an international network of young people and supported by an alliance of over 1,500 civil society organizations in 130 countries, seeks clarity on the matter of climate change and human rights from the ICJ, the world’s highest court. Although not legally binding, an advisory opinion from the ICJ holds great legal and moral authority, and informs the decision making of both national and international courts. A draft resolution spearheaded by the government of Vanuatu and 17 other countries is proceeding to a vote by the UN General Assembly, where it will be decided whether the issue of clarity of the obligations of states regarding climate change and human rights will be referred to the ICJ.
The nexus of environmental law and human rights law is creating an interesting avenue for climate activists to explore in their work to ensure that states both understand their climate obligations through the standards imposed by international human rights mechanisms, and that states and corporations can be held to account for climate inaction by commitments made at previous COPs and in the Paris Agreement. Using legal frameworks as tools in the fight against climate change can allow citizens and civil society organizations to enforce international human rights and climate agreements in their own states, as well as create a legal precedent for activists in other states around the world to do the same.
a global affairs media network
Courts Take Center Stage in Climate Action Amid COP Critiques
International Court of Justice at The Hague. Photo by Rafael Ishkhanyan on Unsplash
March 6, 2023
Climate progress has been difficult, and many advocates of climate action have turned to litigation to further their cause. There has been some success on this track and, crucially, precedent is building to treat environmental rights as human rights, says Tara Grace Connolly.
P
roposed solutions to the climate crisis are wide-ranging, contentious, and often difficult to enforce. The Loss and Damage agenda which dominated COP27 led to the creation of a fund to provide support for vulnerable countries, primarily those in the Global South, that are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. However, the success of this development was tempered by weak target setting on phasing out fossil fuels, and a lack of ambition to meet Paris Agreement targets of limiting global temperatures to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The presence of fossil fuel representatives at successive COPs and the controversial Coca-Cola sponsorship of COP27 has invited criticism from activists, who accuse large corporations of greenwashing. The announcement that the presidency of COP28 in Dubai will be held by Sultan al-Jaber, the UAE special envoy for climate change and the managing director of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. has been met with intense backlash from civil society groups that believe the COP process has been hijacked by fossil fuel lobbyists.
Turning to Litigation to Further the Climate Change Cause
Consequently, activists have been turning to climate change litigation as an alternative means of tackling climate inaction by both states and corporations, and for establishing clarity and agreeing standards by which inaction can be assessed. A study by the London School of Economics found that the cumulative number of climate change related cases has more than doubled since 2015, with a total of over 2000 cases having been filed. Roughly 25% of these cases were filed between 2020 and 2022, demonstrating the increasing numbers of groups and individuals using domestic legal frameworks to hold governments and corporations accountable for breaching climate related commitments, and for inflicting environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.
Significant climate-related cases include Dooh v. Shell, which centered on the corporate liability of Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell and its subsidiary company, the Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria (SPDC) for an October 2004 oil spill in the Niger Delta. Despite the case against a multi-billion dollar multinational being taken by local Nigerian farmers and fisherfolk affected by the spills, the Dutch court found SPDC liable for the damages caused by the oil spill and were ordered to compensate Dooh and two others.
The success of the Dooh case was compounded by the case taken by Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) against Shell. In 2021, the lower court of The Hague ruled that Royal Dutch Shell’s policies in relation to CO2 emissions were too vague, and have been ordered to reduce carbon emissions by 45% before 2030. Additionally, a case won by Climate Case Ireland in 2020 found that the Irish government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate to reach its set goal of a low carbon economy by 2050, and violated both Irish law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Environmental Rights as Human Rights
Among the slew of climate-related cases filed globally is an emerging trend of connecting human rights law and environmental law, and in particular a theme of seeking clarity on the obligations of states and corporations in relation to climate action. Between 2015 and mid-2020, 40 cases relating to human rights and climate change were brought to national and international courts. One such case is the ongoing Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 other states, brought by six Portuguese young people to the European Court of Human Rights. The case rests on Articles 2 (the right to life), 8 (the right to privacy) and 14 (the right not to experience discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and argues that multi-state inaction on climate change falls short of commitments made in the Paris Agreement, and impacts the rights of young people and of future generations. This case raises serious questions regarding the interpretation of the convention and whether climate change falls within its remit.
The issue of clarity is a crucial element of an ongoing campaign for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states and private actors to address human rights issues created by climate change. The campaign, founded in the Pacific Islands, led by an international network of young people and supported by an alliance of over 1,500 civil society organizations in 130 countries, seeks clarity on the matter of climate change and human rights from the ICJ, the world’s highest court. Although not legally binding, an advisory opinion from the ICJ holds great legal and moral authority, and informs the decision making of both national and international courts. A draft resolution spearheaded by the government of Vanuatu and 17 other countries is proceeding to a vote by the UN General Assembly, where it will be decided whether the issue of clarity of the obligations of states regarding climate change and human rights will be referred to the ICJ.
The nexus of environmental law and human rights law is creating an interesting avenue for climate activists to explore in their work to ensure that states both understand their climate obligations through the standards imposed by international human rights mechanisms, and that states and corporations can be held to account for climate inaction by commitments made at previous COPs and in the Paris Agreement. Using legal frameworks as tools in the fight against climate change can allow citizens and civil society organizations to enforce international human rights and climate agreements in their own states, as well as create a legal precedent for activists in other states around the world to do the same.
