1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 16, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 16, 2020

Climate Change Litigation

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.

Keyword(s): climate governance, climate litigation, courts, impact, interdisciplinary research, Paris Agreement
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
2020-10-13
2024-04-20
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 20:699–80
     [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
Climate Change Litigation
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16, 21 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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