Administrative law and climate change governance
Administrative Law and Climate Change Governance: Overview
Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies, ensuring their actions are lawful, reasonable, and follow fair procedures. Climate change governance—regulation and policies aimed at mitigating or adapting to climate change—is increasingly subject to judicial review under administrative law because:
Climate policies impact public welfare, economic interests, and environmental rights.
Agencies and governments must balance scientific evidence, economic costs, and social justice.
Courts review if agencies have followed proper procedures, made reasoned decisions, and respected constitutional or statutory mandates.
Why is Administrative Law Important in Climate Change Governance?
Legitimacy and Accountability: Ensures climate policies are transparent and accountable.
Scientific Evidence: Demands agencies base decisions on credible science.
Public Participation: Requires procedural fairness, including opportunities for public input.
Balancing Interests: Courts review if decisions reasonably balance environmental protection with economic considerations.
Rights Protection: Administrative law may protect constitutional or human rights related to environment and health.
Key Case Laws on Administrative Law & Climate Change Governance
1. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 549 U.S. 497 (2007) — USA
Facts:
Several states and environmental groups sued EPA for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
Issue:
Does the EPA have authority to regulate GHG emissions as “air pollutants”?
Was EPA’s refusal to regulate lawful under administrative law principles?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs fit the definition of air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
EPA must base its decision on whether emissions endanger public health or welfare.
EPA’s refusal to regulate was arbitrary and capricious because it ignored scientific evidence.
Impact:
Established that agencies must ground climate-related decisions in scientific evidence.
Agencies cannot ignore their statutory duties due to policy preferences.
Reinforced that administrative law doctrines like reasoned decision-making apply robustly to climate governance.
2. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 2019
Facts:
Urgenda, an environmental group, sued the Dutch government for inadequate climate action, arguing it violated the duty of care under administrative law and human rights obligations.
Issue:
Is the government’s climate policy lawful under administrative law principles and duty of care?
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld earlier rulings ordering the government to reduce emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
Government has a legal duty of care to prevent dangerous climate change.
Impact:
Landmark case affirming that administrative agencies and governments can be held accountable for failing to act on climate change.
Strong use of administrative law to enforce proportionality and reasonableness in climate policy.
Recognizes climate protection as an administrative obligation.
3. Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015), Lahore High Court — Pakistan
Facts:
Farmer and climate activist Leghari sued the Pakistani government for failing to implement the National Climate Change Policy.
Issue:
Did government failure violate constitutional rights and administrative law duties?
Holding:
The Court recognized climate change as a fundamental constitutional issue.
Directed creation of a Climate Change Commission to oversee implementation.
Held that government has a duty under administrative law to take effective steps.
Impact:
Shows how courts can use administrative law principles to compel climate action.
Emphasizes judicial oversight of government’s climate policies.
Highlights administrative law as a tool for enforcement of environmental rights.
4. Juliana v. United States (2018) — USA
Facts:
A group of young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government for violating their constitutional rights by failing to address climate change.
Issue:
Whether government’s failure to act constitutes a breach of constitutional and administrative duties.
Development:
Though the case was ultimately dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it highlighted:
The role of courts in overseeing government climate policies.
Importance of government’s duty to act under administrative law and constitutional law.
Impact:
Raised awareness of climate governance as an administrative law issue.
Demonstrated tension between courts’ ability to compel climate action and separation of powers.
5. Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland (2020), Supreme Court of Ireland
Facts:
NGO challenged Ireland’s National Mitigation Plan for failing to meet climate commitments.
Issue:
Was the Plan adequate and did it meet administrative law standards for rational decision-making?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that government plans must be reasoned and adequate under administrative law.
The plan was quashed for lacking clear and sufficient detail on how targets would be achieved.
Impact:
Emphasizes that governments must create transparent, enforceable climate policies.
Administrative law requires detailed, evidence-based plans.
Reinforces accountability in climate governance.
6. Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning (2019), Land and Environment Court of NSW — Australia
Facts:
Decision to approve a coal mine expansion was challenged on climate grounds.
Issue:
Did the minister properly consider climate change impacts and administrative law obligations?
Holding:
The Court held that the minister failed to properly consider the climate change impacts, breaching administrative law principles.
Impact:
Confirms climate considerations are relevant under administrative law review.
Agencies must consider environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Ensures transparency and reasonableness in decision-making.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Principle | Impact on Climate Governance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) | USA | Arbitrary and capricious review; scientific basis required | Agency duty to regulate GHGs |
| Urgenda v. Netherlands (2019) | Netherlands | Duty of care; reasonableness | Government accountability for emissions reductions |
| Leghari v. Pakistan (2015) | Pakistan | Duty to implement policy; constitutional rights | Enforcement of climate policy |
| Juliana v. US (2018) | USA | Constitutional and administrative duties | Litigated government duty to act |
| Friends of the Irish Environment (2020) | Ireland | Adequacy of plans; reasoned decision-making | Accountability in mitigation planning |
| Gloucester Resources v. Minister (2019) | Australia | Consideration of climate impacts | Transparency in project approvals |
Key Administrative Law Principles in Climate Governance
Reasonableness: Agencies must base decisions on reasonable grounds supported by evidence.
Procedural Fairness: Public must have the opportunity to participate in climate decision-making.
Transparency: Decisions must be explained clearly and openly.
Legality: Agencies must act within their legal mandates.
Accountability: Courts can review and sometimes compel government climate action.
Conclusion
Administrative law provides crucial tools for climate change governance by ensuring government decisions related to climate change are lawful, rational, and fair. Courts worldwide increasingly recognize the urgency of climate action and use administrative law doctrines to hold governments accountable. The cases above demonstrate how judicial review can compel governments to respect their climate commitments, consider scientific evidence, and protect public interests in the face of climate threats.
RELATED Blog
0 comments