Legal Innovations and Barriers in Climate Change Litigation: A Global Narrative Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/legalis.v3i4.794Keywords:
Climate Change Litigation, Environmental Justice, Human Rights, Civic Engagement, Legal Innovation, Public Interest Law, Global Climate GovernanceAbstract
This narrative review explores the evolving landscape of climate change litigation and its intersection with environmental justice. The study aims to analyze legal innovations, structural barriers, and community participation in global climate litigation, with a particular focus on the integration of human rights frameworks. Literature was retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and HeinOnline using targeted keywords and Boolean combinations. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed studies and legal analyses discussing litigation, human rights, and environmental justice.Findings reveal a significant rise in legal innovations, including the judicial recognition of environmental rights and the application of intergenerational equity. Human rights-based litigation has influenced courts to mandate stronger climate action, especially in Europe and Latin America. However, substantial structural and institutional barriers remain, such as procedural limitations and weak institutional capacity, particularly in developing countries. Civic engagement and community-generated evidence emerged as key drivers in legitimizing claims and shaping litigation outcomes. Comparative analysis illustrates that while developed nations benefit from robust legal systems, emerging innovations in Africa and Latin America also contribute to transformative environmental governance. The study concludes that climate litigation serves as a critical tool for enforcing environmental accountability. It calls for systemic reforms to strengthen access to justice, integrate legal outcomes into policymaking, and expand participatory legal frameworks. Further research should assess the durability of legal precedents and the broader socio-political impacts of litigation.
References
Albers, J. (2018). Human rights and climate change. Security and Human Rights, 28(1-4), 113–144. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02801009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02801009
Buszman, Z. (2024). The pursuit of environmental justice: the adjudicative role of advisory opinions of creating obligations on states in respect of climate change. Cambridge International Law Journal, 13(2), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2024.02.05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2024.02.05
Ekardt, F., & Bärenwaldt, M. (2023). The German climate verdict, human rights, Paris target, and EU climate law. Sustainability, 15(17), 12993. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712993
Fraser, J., & Henderson, L. (2022). The human rights turn in climate change litigation and responsibilities of legal professionals. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 40(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221085342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519221085342
González‐Ricoy, I., & Rey, F. (2019). Enfranchising the future: climate justice and the representation of future generations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.598
Hanna, A. (2021). The role of courts in environmental rights protection in the context of the state policy of Ukraine. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 4(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-4.2-n000066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.2-n000066
Hayajneh, A. (2024). Green justice: the case for establishing a special environmental court in the state of Qatar, challenges and alternatives to promote environmental justice. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(4), 2118–2132. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i4.3715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i4.3715
Herbst, J., & Grant‐Smith, D. (2020). Failure to act or impossible task? The pursuit of climate justice and energy security through litigation, 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53121-8_3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53121-8_3
Iyengar, S. (2023). Human rights and climate wrongs: mapping the landscape of rights‐based climate litigation. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(2), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12498 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12498
Kalis, M., & Priebe, A. (2024). The right to climate protection and the essentially comparable protection of fundamental rights: applying Solange in European climate change litigation?. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 33(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12560 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12560
Keller, H., & Gurash, V. (2023). Expanding NGOs’ standing: climate justice through access to the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 14(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2023.02.04 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2023.02.04
Medici-Colombo, G., & Berros, M. (2023). Climate litigation in Argentina: a critical and prospective analysis. Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, 7(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/24686042-12340104
Medici-Colombo, G., & Ricarte, T. (2023). The Escazú Agreement contribution to environmental justice in Latin America: an exploratory empirical inquiry through the lens of climate litigation. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 16(1), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad029
Murcott, M., & Vinti, C. (2024). The judge-made ‘duty’ to consider climate change in South Africa. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 16(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad069
Nkrumah, B. (2021). Courting emissions: climate adjudication and South Africa’s youth. Energy Sustainability and Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00320-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00320-6
Ohdedar, B. (2022). Climate adaptation, vulnerability and rights-based litigation: broadening the scope of climate litigation using political ecology. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2022.01.06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2022.01.06
Omuko-Jung, L. (2021). The evolving locus standi and causation requirements in Kenya: a precautionary turn for climate change litigation?. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 15(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2021/2/8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2021/2/8
Paiement, P. (2020). Urgent agenda: how climate litigation builds transnational narratives. Transnational Legal Theory, 11(1–2), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1772617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1772617
Peel, J., & Markey-Towler, R. (2021). A duty to care: the case of Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560. Journal of Environmental Law, 33(3), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqab022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqab022
Peel, J., Osofsky, H., & Foerster, A. (2019). A “next generation” of climate change litigation?. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 9(3), 275–307. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1060
Rempel, A., & Gupta, J. (2021). Equitable, effective, and feasible approaches for a prospective fossil fuel transition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.756 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.756
Richardson, W., & Bustos, C. (2022). Implementing nature’s rights in Colombia: the Atrato and Amazon experiences. Revista Derecho Del Estado, (54), 227–275. https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n54.08 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n54.08
Rydberg, A. (2024). Climate change litigation: general perspectives and emerging trends. International Community Law Review, 26(4), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341504
Setzer, J., & Benjamin, L. (2019). Climate litigation in the global south: constraints and innovations. Transnational Environmental Law, 9(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102519000268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102519000268
Smith‐Carrier, T., & Manion, K. (2022). Bringing it all together: leveraging social movements and the courts to advance substantive human rights and climate justice. Human Rights Review, 23(4), 551–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00674-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00674-0
Sulyok, K. (2024). Transforming the rule of law in environmental and climate litigation: prohibiting the arbitrary treatment of future generations. Transnational Environmental Law, 13(3), 475–501. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102524000116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102524000116
Suman, A., & Burnette, A. (2024). A place for people's knowledge in climate evidence: exploring civic evidence in climate litigation. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 33(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12552 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12552
Toolan, N., Marcus, H., Hanna, E., & Wannous, C. (2022). Legal implications of the climate-health crisis: a case study analysis of the role of public health in climate litigation. PLoS ONE, 17(6), e0268633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268633 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268633
Villa, L. (2024). Exploring institutional barriers to effective human rights-based climate litigation in Latin American courts—lessons from Chile and Ecuador. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 16(1), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad073
Wewerinke‐Singh, M., & Salili, D. (2019). Between negotiations and litigation: Vanuatu’s perspective on loss and damage from climate change. Climate Policy, 20(6), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623166 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623166
Zhang, H., & Karim, M. (2025). Pursuing climate justice through public interest litigation: theories, practices, and prospects. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 8(2), 4496–4510. https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i2.6385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i2.6385
