Abstract
In recent years, climate change litigation has increased but many of these cases have failed to achieve their stated objective(s) of legally coercing states to combat global warming. Nevertheless, more recent rulings have signaled a shifting momentum in favor of climate activists, gaining significant international attention. Among these rulings are two cases out of the Netherlands and the United States (U.S.) –– Urgenda and Juliana. The former is considered a great success, given the Dutch state’s mandate to meet and increase its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The latter is considered a case to build upon, given that the presiding U.S. judge dismissed the case. This article seeks to answer the following question: what lessons may be learned from the success of Urgenda, and the failure of Juliana, for future climate change litigation? The authors highlight two key factors that play vital roles in climate change litigation: the specificity to which the state is coerced to pursue strict environmental regulation and judicial activism affected by the types of demands made by the plaintiffs.
Full PaperPaolo Davide Farah
Founder, President and Director
Professor Paolo Davide Farah is Founder, President and Director of gLAWcal – Global Law Initiatives forSustainable Development, Associate Professor(with tenure) at West Virginia University, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences,John D. Rockefeller IV School of Policy and Politics, Department of Public Administration and “Internationally Renowned Professor/Distinguished Professor of Law” (Full Professor level) at Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), Law School,Beijing, China.
Imad Antoine Ibrahim
Senior Research Associate
In 2022, Imad Antoine Ibrahim has been promoted and appointed as a Senior Research Associate at gLAWcal – Global Law Initiative for Sustainable Development. He was Research Associate and Project Manager at gLAWcal – Global Law Initiative for Sustainable Development from 2014 to 2022. He is also an Assistant Research Professor and Research Projects Manager at the Center for Law and Development (CLD), College of Law, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Summary
In recent years, climate change litigation has increased but many of these cases have failed to achieve their stated objective(s) of legally coercing states to combat global warming. Nevertheless, more recent rulings have signaled a shifting momentum in favor of climate activists, gaining significant international attention. Among these rulings are two cases out of the Netherlands and the United States (U.S.) –– Urgenda and Juliana. The former is considered a great success, given the Dutch state’s mandate to meet and increase its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The latter is considered a case to build upon, given that the presiding U.S. judge dismissed the case. This article seeks to answer the following question: what lessons may be learned from the success of Urgenda, and the failure of Juliana, for future climate change litigation? The authors highlight two key factors that play vital roles in climate change litigation: the specificity to which the state is coerced to pursue strict environmental regulation and judicial activism affected by the types of demands made by the plaintiffs.
