Climate Change Litigation And Criminal Accountability

04 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Overview of Climate Change Litigation and Criminal Accountability

Climate change litigation refers to legal actions taken to hold governments, corporations, or individuals responsible for contributing to global warming, failing to meet climate commitments, or causing environmental damage. The lawsuits often invoke:

Constitutional rights (right to life, health, environment)

Tort law (negligence, nuisance)

Environmental statutes (national or international)

Criminal accountability in climate change involves prosecuting entities or individuals for acts that harm the environment, including:

Illegal emissions of pollutants

Violation of environmental laws

Ecocide (emerging concept in international law)

These cases are rare but are gaining momentum globally.

2. Landmark Climate Change Litigation Cases

Case 1: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USA (2007)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Facts: Massachusetts and other states sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles under the Clean Air Act.

Issue: Whether the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Decision: The Court ruled 5-4 that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA must regulate them if they endanger public health or welfare.

Significance:

First major case to recognize government responsibility to control GHG emissions.

Laid the foundation for climate accountability litigation in the U.S.

Case 2: Urgenda Foundation v. State of Netherlands (2015)

Court: District Court of The Hague / Court of Appeal / Supreme Court

Facts: The Urgenda Foundation, representing Dutch citizens, sued the Dutch government for failing to reduce emissions sufficiently to meet its climate commitments.

Issue: Does the government have a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change?

Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the government must reduce emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.

Significance:

First case where a court ordered a government to take action to prevent climate change.

Used human rights arguments (right to life under European Convention on Human Rights).

Established the principle of “duty of care” in climate law.

Case 3: Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015)

Court: Lahore High Court, Pakistan

Facts: Farmer and activist Tariq Leghari sued the Pakistani government for failing to implement its Climate Change Policy, resulting in floods and droughts.

Issue: Can citizens hold governments accountable for climate inaction?

Decision: The court ruled in favor of Leghari, emphasizing that the government had a constitutional obligation to protect citizens from climate change.

Significance:

Created a Climate Change Commission to ensure policy implementation.

Recognized climate change as a constitutional issue linked to human rights.

Case 4: Juliana v. United States (2015–ongoing)

Court: U.S. District Court, Oregon

Facts: 21 young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government for failing to protect them from climate change impacts, arguing that government policies violated constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

Decision:

Initially, the case survived motions to dismiss, but courts later limited government accountability due to separation of powers concerns.

Significance:

Pioneering youth climate litigation.

Highlighted constitutional arguments in climate law.

Inspired similar youth-led climate cases worldwide.

Case 5: People of the Philippines v. China (2016) – Criminal and State Accountability

Court: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

Facts: Philippines filed a case against China for constructing artificial islands and harming marine ecosystems in the South China Sea.

Issue: Violations of environmental law and marine ecology under international law.

Decision: PCA ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating China’s actions caused serious environmental harm.

Significance:

First international ruling linking state actions to environmental degradation.

While not criminal per se, it laid a foundation for state-level environmental accountability in international law.

Case 6: R v. Finesse Oil Corp (Hypothetical / Emerging Criminal Accountability)

Context: Some criminal cases in Europe and Canada are exploring corporate liability for environmental harm.

Example: Corporations emitting above permitted levels or knowingly violating environmental regulations have faced criminal charges.

Significance:

Demonstrates the shift from civil to criminal liability for climate-related harms.

Some countries are discussing ecocide laws, making severe environmental destruction a prosecutable offense.

3. Key Trends from These Cases

Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Courts increasingly recognize the connection between climate inaction and violations of fundamental rights.

Government Accountability: Governments are being ordered to take proactive steps to reduce emissions.

Youth and Civil Society Litigation: Activists and NGOs are increasingly using courts as a tool to demand climate justice.

Emerging Criminal Accountability: Though rare, there’s a growing push to hold corporations and states criminally responsible for severe environmental harm.