WHEN most people think about addressing climate change, they often envision high-level policy meetings, international summits and governmental negotiations.
However, what is frequently overlooked is the increasingly pivotal role courts worldwide play in enabling individuals and advocacy groups to hold governments and corporations accountable for their environmental impact.
Through strategic climate litigation, citizens are asserting their legal rights and demanding stronger climate policies. These legal actions directly contribute to Sustainable Development Goal 13 (SDG 13): taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
In 2023, a landmark ruling in Montana placed young people at the forefront of climate litigation. Sixteen youths sued the state, arguing that its continued support for the fossil fuel industry violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment”.
The court ruled in their favour, determining that the state’s failure to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental decisions breached these fundamental rights.
This marked the first time a US court explicitly recognised constitutional protections in the context of climate change, setting a significant legal precedent for future climate-related cases.
The Montana case is part of a broader global trend where young people are leveraging the legal system to push for climate action. Across different jurisdictions, youth-led lawsuits are emerging as powerful tools to challenge government policies that exacerbate climate change. These cases not only amplify the voices of younger generations, who will bear the brunt of climate change’s long-term effects, but also compel policymakers to integrate climate considerations into governance frameworks.
A pivotal case in the Netherlands further solidified the role of courts in climate governance. In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Urgenda Foundation, a climate advocacy group, ordering the government to cut emissions by 25% to meet its international climate commitments. This was the first time a national court held a government legally accountable for failing to meet climate targets, reinforcing the principle that climate action is not just a political choice but a legal obligation.
According to a researcher from the University of Sheffield, climate litigation is an increasingly effective tool in holding governments accountable for their environmental commitments. She argued that legal action is not only influencing national policies but also shaping global climate governance by setting precedents that other jurisdictions can follow. Since the Urgenda ruling, courts in Germany, Belgium and other countries have followed suit, mandating stricter emissions targets and stronger climate policies. These cases demonstrate how legal frameworks can be used to enforce climate commitments, ensuring that governments do not backtrack on their environmental responsibilities.
As highlighted in the International Community Law Review, these legal rulings are not only empowering citizens but also creating a critical avenue for climate action in a legal context, where formal political processes may lag behind. The review emphasises how the Urgenda case represents a watershed moment in the global movement to make climate policy more enforceable through the courts, creating pathways for future litigants in various countries to demand stronger environmental protections.
Climate litigation is not only targeting governments – major corporations are also being held accountable. In a groundbreaking decision, an oil giant company was ordered to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, significantly extending the scope of climate responsibility to private companies. This ruling established a critical legal precedent: corporations, not just governments, have a duty to mitigate climate change. Building on this precedent, the environmental law charity ClientEarth filed a lawsuit against the company board of directors in 2023 accusing them of failing to align the company’s strategy with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This legal action signals a growing trend in which corporate executives are being held personally accountable for climate-related decisions, rather than allowing liability to rest solely on the companies they oversee.
Another significant development in climate litigation is the increasing number of lawsuits targeting greenwashing – the practice of misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of a product or corporate strategy. Many corporations advertise their products as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable”, yet their supply chains, production materials or management systems fail to meet the promised sustainability standards.
Legal actions against greenwashing aim to enhance transparency in corporate environmental claims. By exposing deceptive marketing tactics, these lawsuits ensure that businesses provide accurate and verifiable information about their environmental impact. This trend also empowers consumers to make informed choices, discouraging companies from engaging in misleading sustainability narratives.
An emerging legal trend is the integration of human rights arguments in climate litigation. One notable case involves Torres Strait Islanders, an indigenous community in Australia, who sued their government for failing to take adequate action on climate change. They argued that rising sea levels threatened their ancestral lands, violating their cultural and residential rights.
The United Nations Human Rights Council ruled in their favour, finding that Australia had breached its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by not protecting the islands from climate-related harm. This case has significant implications for other indigenous and vulnerable communities worldwide as it establishes climate inaction as a human rights violation.
Despite these legal victories, challenges remain. One high-profile case involved a young activist from Portugal who accused 33 countries of failing to implement adequate climate policies, arguing that their inaction jeopardised his future. However, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
This ruling highlights the complex legal hurdles in holding multiple nations collectively accountable for a global crisis. Unlike cases targeting a single government or corporation, cross-border litigation faces diplomatic and legal obstacles, making it difficult to assign responsibility for climate damages across multiple jurisdictions.
Looking ahead, strategic climate litigation is expected to expand further, focusing on corporate responsibility, financial risks and human rights. More lawsuits are being brought against corporate boards, demanding policies that align with international climate agreements. As legal pressure intensifies, businesses will need to ensure compliance with climate commitments and take proactive steps towards sustainability and resilience.
At the same time, courts will continue to play a crucial role in driving measurable climate action, compelling governments to implement and enforce more effective policies. Climate justice is no longer confined to political discourse – it is actively being shaped by
judicial rulings that redefine legal and ethical responsibilities.
As courts continue to align legal action with SDG 13, they are driving forward a more equitable, transparent and sustainable global climate response. Climate justice is not merely a topic for discussion – it is a legal reality that is shaping history, case by case.
Liu Kunpeng and Dr Mohd Istajib Mokhtar are from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
