1932

Abstract

Climate change litigation has grown exponentially in the last decade, paralleled by the emergence of a rich legal and social sciences literature assessing these cases. Building on a recent review in , this article evaluates the growth of this literature and the key themes it highlights. In 2019, climate litigation literature experienced substantial growth, with a focus on multiple novel dimensions: new high-profile judgments; emerging legal avenues, types of actors, litigation objectives, and jurisdictions, especially those in the Global South; and additional interdisciplinary analyses. Just as in the underlying case law, climate litigation scholarship shows evidence of distinct but overlapping waves that build together in a manner similar to a harmonic chord. Even so, this literature has not yet engaged deeply with questions about the effectiveness of climate litigation as a governance tool, particularly in the context of the decentralized system formalized with the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
2020-10-13
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/16/1/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ariani D. 2019. The effectiveness of climate change litigation as a venue to uphold state climate change obligations: a look at developments in Indonesia. Indones. J. Int. Law 16:2 http://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol15.3.751
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnall A, Hilson C, McKinnon C 2019. Climate displacement and resettlement: the importance of claims-making “from below. .” Clim. Policy 19:6665–71
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey I. 2010. The EU emissions trading scheme. WIRES Clim. Change 1:1144–53
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes K. 2019. Democratizing climate change: litigation for the era of extreme weather. McGeorge Law Rev 50:651–84
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barritt E, Sediti B. 2019. The symbolic value of Leghari v Federation of Pakistan: climate change adjudication in the Global South. King's Law J 30:2203–10
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjamin L. 2019. Directors are in the crosshairs of corporate climate litigation. The Conversation July 9. https://theconversation.com/directors-are-in-the-crosshairs-of-corporate-climate-litigation-117737
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biesbroek R, Lesnikowski A. 2018. Adaptation: the neglected dimension of polycentric climate governance?. Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? A Jordan, D Huitema, H Van Asselt, J Forster 303–19 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bodansky D. 2005. The international climate change regime. Perspectives on Climate Change: Science, Economics, Politics, Ethics W Sinnott-Armstrong, R Howarth 147–80 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publ. Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bodansky D. 2019. Adjudication versus negotiation in protecting environmental commons. Univ. Hawai'i Law Rev. 41:2260–76
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bouwer K. 2018. The unsexy future of climate change litigation. J. Environ. Law. 30:3483–506
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bouwer LM. 2019. Observed and projected impacts from extreme weather events: implications for loss and damage. Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options R Mechler, LM Bouwer, T Schinko, S Surminski, J Linnerooth-Bayer 63–82 Cham, Switz.: Springer Int. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyle A. 2019. Litigating climate change under Part XII of the LOSC. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 34:3458–81
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carbon Action Tracker 2019. Country summary: China https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
  14. Carnwath JSC. 2016. Climate change adjudication after Paris: a reflection. J. Environ. Law 28:15–9
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen Z. 2019. Addressing dilemmas over climate change litigation in China. Hong Kong Law J 49:2719–48
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cox RHJ. 2012. Revolution Justified Maastricht, Neth.: Planet Prosper. Found.
  17. Cummings SL, Rhode DL. 2009. Public interest litigation: insights from theory and practice. Fordham Urban Law J 36:4603–51
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dellinger M. 2019. Post-Jesner climate change lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute. Columbia J. Environ. Law 44:241–98
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Doelle M, Seck S. 2020. Loss & damage from climate change: From concept to remedy. Clim. Policy 20:69980
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Engel K, Overpeck J. 2013. Adaptation and the courtroom: judging climate science. Mich. J. Environ. Adm. Law 3:11–32
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Epp CR. 2008. Law as an instrument of social reform. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics GA Caldeira, RD Kelemen, KE Whittington Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Falkner R. 2016. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Aff. 92:51107–25
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fisher E. 2013. Climate change litigation, obsession and expertise: reflecting on the scholarly response to Massachusetts v. EPA. . Law Policy 35:3236–60
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Flatt V, Zerbe RO. 2019. Climate change common law nuisance suits: a legal-efficiency analysis. Environ. Law 49:3683
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Foerster A. 2019. Climate justice and corporations. King's Law J 30:2305–22
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Frohlich MF, Smith TF, Jacobson C, Fidelman P, Carter RW, Baldwin C 2019. Towards adaptive coastal management: lessons from a “legal storm” in Byron Shire, Australia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 179:104909
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ganguly G, Setzer J, Heyvaert V 2018. If at first you don't succeed: suing corporations for climate change. Oxf. J. Leg. Stud. 38:4841–68
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7 (Aust.)
  29. Gonzalez-Ricoy I, Rey F. 2019. Enfranchising the future: climate justice and the representation of future generations. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10:5e598
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hale T. 2016. “All hands on deck”: the Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Glob. Environ. Polit. 16:312–22
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Harrington LJ, Otto FEL. 2019. Attributable damage liability in a non-linear climate. Clim. Change 153:115–20
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hilson C. 2010. Climate change litigation: a social movement perspective Work. Pap., Univ Reading, UK: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1680362
  33. Hilson C. 2019. Climate populism, courts, and science. J. Environ. Law 31:3395–98
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Horbach S, Halffman W. 2018. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 3:81–15
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hughes L. 2019. The Rocky Hill decision: A watershed for climate change action. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 37:3341–51
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Iglesias Marquez D. 2019. Climate litigation against the carbon majors in the home states: an analysis from the perspective of business and human rights. Rev. Electron. Estud. Int 37: https://doi.org/10.17103/reei.37.05
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change (IPCC) 2012. Summary for policymakers. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation CB Field, V Barros, TF Stocker, D Qin, DJ Dokken et al.1–19 Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change (IPCC) 2018. Summary for policymakers. Global Warming of 1.5°C, ed. V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, H-O Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea et al.32 Geneva, Switz.: Intergov. Panel Clim. Change
  39. Jacometti V. 2019. Climate change litigation: global trends and critical issues in the light of the Urgenda 2018 decision and the IPCC Special Report “Global Warming of 1.5°C.”. Glob. Jurist 20:1 https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2019-0005
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Johnson A. 2019. Life, liberty, and a stable climate: the potential of the state-created danger doctrine in climate change litigation. Am. Univ. J. Gend. Soc. Policy Law 27:44
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Jordan AJ, Huitema D, Hildén M, Van Asselt H, Rayner TJ et al. 2015. Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat. Clim. Change 5:11977–82
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Juliana v. USA Case No. 18-36082, D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA, Opinion 9th Circuit (Jan. 17, 2020)
  43. Kahl W, Daebel M-C. 2019. Climate change litigation in Germany an overview of politics, legislation and especially jurisdiction regarding climate protection and climate damages. Eur. Energy Environ. Law Rev. 28:267–76
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Krämer L. 2019. Climate change, human rights and access to justice. J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 16:121–34
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kuh KF. 2019. Judicial climate engagement. Ecol. Law Q. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3421500
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ladner D. 2015. Strategy Testing: An Innovative Approach to Monitoring Highly Flexible Aid Programs San Francisco: Asia Found.
  47. Lazarus R. 2019. Climate litigation has at least for now dodged a possibly fatal blow. Environ. Forum 36:213
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Leijten I. 2019. Human rights v. insufficient climate action: the Urgenda case. Neth. Q. Hum. Rights 37:2112–18
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Levy N. 2019. Juliana and the political generativity of climate litigation. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 43:2479–506
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Li J. 2019. Climate change litigation: a promising pathway to climate justice in China. Va. Environ. Law J. 37:2132–70
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Liran A. 2019. Holding the animal agriculture industry accountable for climate change: merits of a public nuisance claim under California and Federal law. Villanova Environ. Law J. 30:1–38
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Marjanac S, Patton L. 2018. Extreme weather event attribution science and climate change litigation: An essential step in the causal chain. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 36:3265–98
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 549 US 497 2007.
  54. Mayer B. 2019. The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation: ruling of the court of appeal of The Hague (9 October 2018). Transnatl. Environ. Law 8:1167–92
    [Google Scholar]
  55. McCann M. 1996. Causal versus constitutive explanations (or, on the difficulty of being so positive…). Law Soc. Inq. 21:2457–82
    [Google Scholar]
  56. McCormick S, Glicksman RL, Simmens SJ, Paddock LR, Kim D, Whited B 2018. Strategies in and outcomes of climate change litigation in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 8:9829–33
    [Google Scholar]
  57. McGrath C. 2019. Urgenda appeal is groundbreaking for ambitious climate litigation globally. Environ. Plan. Law J. 36:190–94
    [Google Scholar]
  58. McIntyre J. 2019. With 15 other children, Greta Thunberg has filed a UN complaint against 5 countries. Here's what it'll achieve. The Conversation Sept. 25. https://theconversation.com/with-15-other-children-greta-thunberg-has-filed-a-un-complaint-against-5-countries-heres-what-itll-achieve-124090
    [Google Scholar]
  59. McNamara KE, Jackson G. 2019. Loss and damage: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10:2e564
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Minnerop P. 2019. Integrating the “duty of care” under the European Convention on Human Rights and the science and law of climate change: the decision of The Hague Court of Appeal in the Urgenda case. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 37:2149–79
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Osofsky HM. 2005. The geography of climate change litigation: implications for transnational regulatory governance. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 83:1789–855
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Osofsky HM. 2010. The continuing importance of climate change litigation. Clim. Law 1:13–29
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ousley MH. 2019. Precedent, politics, or priorities: Are courts stepping out of their traditional judicial bounds when addressing climate change. Hastings Environ. Law J. 25:2349–74
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Pace BJ. 2019. The Children's Climate Lawsuit: a critique of the substance and science of the preeminent atmospheric trust litigation case. Juliana v. United States. Ida. Law Rev. 55:185–114
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pain N, Pepper R. 2019. Legal costs considerations in public interest climate change litigation. King's Law J 30:2211–23
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Peel J. 2007. The role of climate change litigation in Australia's response to global warming. Environ. Plan. Law J. 24:290–105
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Peel J, Lin J. 2019. Transnational climate litigation: the contribution of the Global South. Am. J. Int. Law 113:4679–726
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2013. Climate change litigation's regulatory pathways: a comparative analysis of the United States and Australia. Law Policy 35:3150–83
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2015a. Climate Change Litigation: Regulatory Pathways to Cleaner Energy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  70. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2015b. Sue to adapt. Minn. Law Rev. 99:62177–250
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2018. A rights turn in climate change litigation. Transnatl. Environ. Law 7:137–67
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Peel J, Osofsky HM. 2019. Litigation as a climate regulatory tool. International Judicial Practice on the Environment C Voigt 311–36 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Peel J, Osofsky H, Foerster A 2017. Shaping the “next generation” of climate change litigation in Australia. Melb. Univ. Law Rev. 41:2793–844
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Pekkarinen V, Toussaint PT, Van Asselt H 2019. Loss and damage after Paris: moving beyond rhetoric. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 1:31–49
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pernot E. 2019. The right to an environment and its effects for climate change litigation in Ireland. Trinity Coll. Law Rev. 22:151–72
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pfrommer T, Goeschl T, Proelss A, Carrier M, Lenhard J et al. 2019. Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability. Clim. Change 152:167–84
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Posner EA. 2007. Climate change and international human rights litigation: a critical appraisal. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 155:1925–45
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Preston BJ. 2011. The influence of climate change litigation on governments and the private sector. Clim. Law 2:4485–513
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rausch J. 2019. The necessity defense and climate change: a climate change litigant's guide. Columbia J. Environ. Law 44:2553–602
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Rayner S. 2010. How to eat an elephant: a bottom-up approach to climate policy. Clim. Policy 10:6615–21
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Robiou du Pont Y, Meinshausen M 2018. Warming assessment of the bottom-up Paris Agreement emissions pledges. Nat. Commun. 9:14810
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Rogelj J, Den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H et al. 2016. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature 534:631–39
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rosenberg GN. 2013. The Hollow Hope Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2nd ed..
  84. Savaresi A, Auz J. 2019. Climate change litigation and human rights: pushing the boundaries. Clim. Law 9:3244–62
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Setzer J, Byrnes R. 2019. Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot Policy Rep., Cent. Clim. Change Econ. Policy London:
  86. Setzer J, Vanhala LC. 2019. Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10:3e580
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sharp B. 2019. Stepping into the breach: state constitutions as a vehicle for advancing rights-based climate litigation. Duke J. Const. Law Public Policy 14:39–74
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Smith DC. 2019. Landmark climate change-related judicial decisions handed down in the Netherlands and Australia: A preview of what's to come. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 37:2145–47
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Solana J. 2019. Climate litigation in financial markets: a typology. Transnatl. Environ. Law 9:1103–35
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Spier J. 2019. There is no future without addressing climate change. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 37:2181–204
    [Google Scholar]
  91. State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation Hague Court of Appeal. case 200.178.245/01 (Oct. 9, 2018) (Engl. transl.); Supreme Court of the Netherlands, case 19/00135 (Dec. 20, 2019) (Engl. transl.)
  92. Stocks S. 2019. No firm ground: Fifth Amendment takings and sea-level rise. Hastings Law J 70:2621–38
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Ternes ME. 2019. Legal liability, good engineering judgment and adaptation. Process. Saf. Prog. 38:3e12083
    [Google Scholar]
  94. UN Environ. Prog. (UNEP) 2017. The Status of Climate Litigation: A Global Review Geneva: UN Environ. Prog.
  95. Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands 2015. HAZA C/09/00456689
  96. van Zeben J. 2015. Establishing a governmental duty of care for climate change mitigation: Will Urgenda turn the tide. Transnatl. Environ. Law 4:2339–57
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Vanhala L. 2011. Social movements lashing back: law, social change and socio-legal backlash in Canada. Stud. Law Polit. Soc. 54:113–40
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Vanhala L, Kinghan J. 2018. Literature review on the use and impact of litigation. Res., Public Law Proj London:
  99. Verschuuren J. 2019. The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: the Hague Court of Appeal upholds judgment requiring the Netherlands to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 28:194–98
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Villavicencio Calzadilla P. 2019. Climate change litigation: a powerful strategy for enhancing climate change communication. Addressing the Challenges in Communicating Climate Change Across Various Audiences W Leal Fihlo, B Lackner, H McGhie 231–46 Basel, Switz.: Springer Int. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Vizcarra HV. 2019. Climate-related disclosure and litigation risk in the oil & gas industry: Will state attorneys general investigations impede the drive for more expansive disclosures. Vt. Law Rev. 43:4733–76
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Walters D. 2019. Animal agriculture liability for climatic nuisance: a path forward for climate change litigation. Columbia J. Environ. Law 44:299–339
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Wasim R. 2019. Corporate (non)disclosure of climate change information. Columbia Law Rev 119:51311–54
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Wegener BW. 2019. Urgenda—World rescue by court order? The “climate justice” movement tests the limits of legal protection. J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 16:2125–47
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Wewerinke-Singh M. 2019. Remedies for human rights violations caused by climate change. Clim. Law 9:3224–43
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Wewerinke-Singh M, Salili DH. 2019. Between negotiations and litigation: Vanuatu's perspective on loss and damage from climate change. Clim. Policy. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623166
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Wood MC. 2009. Atmospheric trust litigation. Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches WCG Burns, HM Osofsky 99–128 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wood MC, Woodward CW. 2016. Atmospheric trust litigation and the constitutional right to a healthy climate system: judicial recognition at last. Wash. J. Environ. Law Policy 6:2635–84
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Zhao Y, Lyu S, Wang Z 2019. Prospects for climate change litigation in China. Transnatl. Environ. Law 8:2349–77
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error