《联合国环境规划署:全球气候诉讼报告:2023年现状综述(英文版)(109页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《联合国环境规划署:全球气候诉讼报告:2023年现状综述(英文版)(109页).pdf(109页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、 Global Climate Litigation Report2023 Status ReviewGlobal Climate Litigation Report 2023 Status Review Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review 2023 United Nations Environment ProgrammeGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review ISBN:978-92-807-4052-3 Job number:DEL/2550/NA This p
2、ublication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special permission from the copyright holder,provided acknowledgement of the source is made.The United Nations Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication th
3、at uses this publication as a source.No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.Applications for such permission,with a statement of the purpose and extent of the repro
4、duction,should be addressed to unep-communication-directorun.org.Disclaimers The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of an
5、y country,territory or city or area or its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does not imply endorsement by the United Nations Environment Programme or the authors.The use of information from this docu
6、ment for publicity or advertising is not permitted.Trademark names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement of trademark or copyright laws.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nat
7、ions Environment Programme.We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made.Maps,photos and illustrations as specifiedSuggested citation:United Nations Environment Programme(2023).Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review.Nairobi.Production:Law Division United Nations
8、Environment Programme P.O.Box 30552,00100 Nairobi,Kenya Tel:+254 20 7623365 E-mail:unep-law-directorun.org www.unep.orgwww.unep.org/resources/report/global-climate-litigation-report-2023-status-reviewGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Acknowledgements AcknowledgementsThis publicatio
9、n was developed by the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP)in cooperation with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in New York City,United States of America.It was researched and drafted by Michael Burger,Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
10、and Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School,and Maria Antonia Tigre,Senior Fellow,Global Climate Change Litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.A final critical review of the report was undertaken by staff from the UNEP Law Division:Patricia Kameri-Mbote,Dire
11、ctor;Arnold Kreilhuber,Deputy Director;Maria Socorro Manguiat,Head of the National Environmental Law Unit;Andrew Raine,Head of the International Environmental Law Unit;Soo-Young Hwang and Rene Gift,Legal Officers;and Jackline Wanjiru,Programme Management Officer,with support from colleagues:Aphrodit
12、e Smagadi and Angela Kariuki,Legal Officers;Benjamin Ojoleck,Lais Paiva Siqueira,Catalina Pizarro and Marina Venncio,Associate Legal Officers;and Tiffany Collard and Erick Khayota,interns with the UNEP Law Division.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|List of abbreviations and acronym
13、sList of abbreviations and acronymsBNDES Brazilian National Development Bank CJEU Court of Justice of the European UnionCO2 Carbon dioxideCSPP Corporate Sector Purchase ProgrammeECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EIA Environmental impact assessment EPA Envi
14、ronmental Protection Agency GHG(s)Greenhouse gas(es)HRC United Nations Human Rights Council IACHR Inter-American Commission of Human Rights IACtHR Inter-American Court of Human Rights ICC International Criminal CourtICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment DisputesIPCC Intergovernment
15、al Panel on Climate Change ISDS Investor-State dispute settlements ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea NDC Nationally determined contributionNGO Non-governmental organizationOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development UNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNFCCC Un
16、ited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Contents Page VIIContentsAcknowledgements VForeword IXExecutive summary XI Introduction 1 Part 1:The importance of climate change litigation 5 Part 2:Overview of global climate litigation 9I.Metho
17、dology 10II.Survey of climate change litigation 13III.Regional representation of climate change litigation 15 Part 3:The state of climate change litigation 25I.The use of“climate rights”in climate litigation 26A.International climate rights cases 28i.Cases at the United Nations 28ii.Regional cases 3
18、1a.Cases before the Inter-American System of Human Rights 31b.Cases before the East African Court of Justice 32c.Cases before European regional courts 33B.Domestic climate rights cases 36i.Human rights 36ii.The right to a healthy environment 38II.Domestic enforcement of international climate change
19、commitments 42III.Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in the ground 44A.Consistency with the Paris Agreement or net-zero commitments 44B.Environmental impact assessment requirements 47Page VIII Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|List of abbreviations and acronymsIV.Corporate liabi
20、lity and responsibility 50A.Corporate duty to mitigate emissions 50B.Corporate liability for adaptation 54C.Responsibility of financial institutions 54V.Climate disclosures and greenwashing 55A.Protection of investors:climate disclosures 55B.Protection of consumers:greenwashing complaints 57C.Protec
21、tion of consumers:misrepresentation of products 59VI.Failure to adapt and impacts of adaptation 60 Part 4:The state of climate change litigation future directions 61I.Update on 2020 predictions:climate migration 63II.Update on 2020 predictions:pre-and post-disaster cases 64IV.Update on 2020 predicti
22、ons:increased attention to climate attribution 65 and fair share assessments of mitigation V.Transnational responsibility(extraterritorial responsibility)66VI.Cases brought by vulnerable groups 68VII.Backlash cases 70A.Investor-State dispute settlements 70B.Just transition cases 72C.Claims against c
23、limate activists 72 Conclusion 73References 75Case law(referenced in Report)75 Literature 87Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Foreword Page IXForewordThe climate crisis is getting worse,not better.Every year,the impacts of climate change are getting more intense.Every year,hundreds
24、 of millions of people endure increasingly regular extreme weather events,taking away livelihoods and lives.Every year,our economies and in some cases,entire countries begin to see the reality of an uncertain future.As the United Nations Secretary-General summarized to delegates gathered in Egypt at
25、 the twenty-seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in November 2022,“We are in the fight of our lives,and we are losing.”Climate litigation represents a frontier solution to change the dynamics of this fight.As this report shows,people are incr
26、easingly turning to the courts to combat the climate crisis.Governments and private sector entities are being increasingly challenged and held to account.Children and youth,womens groups,local communities and Indigenous Peoples,among others,are also taking a more prominent role in bringing these cas
27、es and driving climate change governance reform in more and more countries around the world.Flickr/UN WomenThe legal grounds for these cases are also widening.Both the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly have now recognized the right to a clean,healthy and sus
28、tainable environment.We are seeing new claims centred around the violation of legislation related to net-zero targets,environmental impact assessments,advertising standards,and obligations under the Paris Agreement.Climate litigation has set precedents for climate action all over the globe,going bey
29、ond the jurisdictions in which they were brought and empowering and driving similar action in other countries.This report demonstrates the importance of an environmental rule of law in combating the triple planetary crises of climate change,biodiversity loss and pollution.Access to justice enables t
30、he protection of environmental law and human rights and promotes accountability in public institutions.It is not enough that we recognize human rights,we must make every effort to protect and uphold them and enable individuals to seek redress where they are violated.I would like to acknowledge the o
31、utstanding support of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.Our collaboration in producing the Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review would not have been possible without their dedication and commitment.Patricia Kameri-Mbote Director of the Law Division United N
32、ations Environment ProgrammePage X Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|ForewordExecutive summaryClimate ambition around the world remains inadequate to meet the challenge of our climate crisis.Despite improvement in countries mitigation and adaptation targets,and despite numerous cor
33、porate pledges to achieve net-zero emissions in the future,the international community is still a long way from achieving the goals and objectives of the Paris Agreement.In response,individuals,children and youth,women and human rights groups,communities,Indigenous groups,non-governmental organizati
34、ons(NGOs),business entities,and national and subnational governments have turned to courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies,including special procedures of the United Nations and arbitration tribunals,seeking relief through:(i)The enforcement of existing climate laws(ii)I
35、ntegration of climate action into existing environmental,energy and natural resources laws(iii)Orders to legislators,policymakers and business enterprises to be more ambitious and thorough in their approaches to climate change(iv)Establishment of clear definitions of human rights and obligations aff
36、ected by climate change(v)Compensation for climate harmsGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Executive summary Page XI Flickr/UN WomenPage XII Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Executive summary As these cases become more frequent and numerous overall,the body of leg
37、al precedent grows,forming an increasingly well-defined field of law.This Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review,which updates previous United Nations Environment Programme reports published in 2017 and 2020,provides an overview of the current state of climate change litigation and an u
38、pdate of global climate change litigation trends.It provides judges,lawyers,advocates,policymakers,researchers,environmental defenders,climate activists,human rights activists(including womens rights activists),NGOs,businesses and the international community with an essential resource to understand
39、the current state of global climate litigation,including descriptions of the key issues that courts have faced in the course of climate change cases.While the legal arguments and the adjudicative forums in which they are brought vary greatly,climate change cases have typically addressed similar key
40、legal issues.Like the 2017 and 2020 Litigation Reports,this report summarizes those issues,which include challenges to whether the court has the power to resolve the dispute,identifying the source of an enforceable climate-related right or obligation,crafting a remedy that will lessen the plaintiffs
41、 injuries,and,importantly,marshalling the science of climate attribution.Over the course of reporting on these issues,it is clear that parties are putting forward innovative arguments on connections between a specific greenhouse gas emitters actions and global climate change,and how foreseeable clim
42、ate-driven impacts can be linked to specific harms suffered by plaintiffs.describes the importance of climate change litigation through an overview of the environmental,diplomatic and political circumstances that make climate change litigation efforts especially important.provides a survey of the st
43、ate of climate change litigation and a discussion of evident and emerging trends.describes the types of climate cases that suggest where global climate change litigation may be heading in the coming years.provides an overview of global climate litigation through an analysis of the overall number of
44、gathered cases and their geographic distribution.As described in more detail elsewhere in this report,the cases analysed here were collected by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law in its Climate Change Litigation databases.Part 1Part 3Part 4Part 2 Unsplash/Mathias RedingPage XIV Global Climate L
45、itigation Report:2023 Status Review|Executive summaryAs at 31 December 2022,the Sabin Centers Climate Change Litigation databases included 2,180 cases filed in 65 jurisdictions and international or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies,or other adjudicatory bodies,including special procedu
46、res of the United Nations and arbitration tribunals.This number includes 1,522 cases in the United States of America and 658 cases in all other jurisdictions combined.In summary,climate change litigation is increasing and broadening in geographical reach,while the range of legal theories is expandin
47、g.It has become clear and is now recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that inclusive approaches to climate litigation that also address the human rights of the most vulnerable groups in society can contribute in meaningful ways to compel governments and corporate actors to pur
48、sue more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Introduction Page 1 Unsplash/Mika BaumeisterIntroductionPage 2 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|IntroductionIntroductionThe United Nations Environment Programme(UN
49、EP)published its first survey of global climate change litigation in 2017(UNEP 2017)1 and the second instalment in 2020(UNEP 2020).2 These reports identified key developments,profiled significant cases,described then-current and emerging trends,and outlined critical legal issues in climate change ca
50、ses.This 2023 Litigation Report represents the third instalment of the global survey on climate litigation.It updates the status of cases that were still pending when they were featured in the previous reports,follows up on key trends that have continued in intervening years,and outlines legal chang
51、es,new trends and emerging issues in climate litigation.1 Throughout this report,we refer to this previous UNEP report on climate litigation as the“2017 Litigation Report”.2 Throughout this report,we refer to this previous UNEP report on climate litigation as the“2020 Litigation Report”.The report a
52、nalyses pending cases,decisions and trends in the 20202022 period,as well as cases added to the Climate Change Litigation databasebs maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law(Sabin Center),as part of the Sabin Centers launch of the Peer Review Network of Global Climate Litigation(“the Ne
53、twork”).The publication also briefly highlights womens role in climate change litigation.This places women not only as victims disproportionately suffering the impacts of climate change,but also shows their contributions towards environmental justice for everyones benefit.These inextricable linkages
54、 are important to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030,which call for gender equality and human rights as key objectives.Except where otherwise noted,this report contains information correct as at 31 December 2022.Unsplash/Vlad TchompalovGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023
55、Status Review|Introduction Page 3Box 1:Defining“climate change litigation”3 This definition guides the collection of cases included in the Climate Change Litigation databases,which are developed and maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.See also Part 2.II.4 Pee
56、l and Lin(2019)note that in the Global South,in particular,cases are less likely to fit into the definition of climate change litigation used here.On pages 690 and 691,they argue that analyses of climate change litigation should include matters in which climate change is a peripheral issue because t
57、hose cases still“make an important contribution to climate governance”.On the other hand,on page 695,they similarly exclude matters where climate change is mentioned only incidentally.This report follows the definition of“climate change litigation”used by the Sabin Center in the development and main
58、tenance of its Climate Change Litigation databases.Under this definition,climate change litigation includes cases that raise material issues of law or fact relating to climate change mitigation,adaptation or the science of climate change(Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 2022a).3 Such cases are br
59、ought before a range of administrative,judicial and other adjudicatory bodies.These cases are typically identified by the Sabin Center with keywords like“climate change”,“global warming”,“global change”,“greenhouse gas”,“GHGs”and“sea level rise”.Cases that raise issues of law or fact related to clim
60、ate change but do not use those or other specific terms are also included.This report excludes cases where the discussion of climate change is incidental,or where a non-climate legal theory would guide the substantive outcome of the case.Thus,when climate change keywords are only used as a passing r
61、eference to the fact of climate change and those issues are not related to the laws,policies or actions actually at issue,the case is excluded.Similarly,this report excludes cases that seek to accomplish goals arguably related to climate change adaptation or mitigation,but their resolution does not
62、depend on the climate change dimensions of those goals.For example,lawsuits seeking to use human health regulations to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants may incidentally cause a court to compel that power plant to emit a lower level of greenhouse gases(GHGs).Such cases are not conside
63、red“climate change litigation”for the purposes of this study(Peel and Lin 2019).4 Unsplash/Rai Singh UriartePage 4 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Introduction Notably,both the 2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports conclude that litigation is central to efforts to compel governments a
64、nd corporate actors to undertake more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation goalsThis report proceeds in five parts:Part 1 sets the stage by describing the growing urgency of the climate crisis and the role that climate change litigation plays in the domains of climate law and policy.Pa
65、rt 2 surveys the current status of global climate change litigation,drawn from the cases included in the Sabin Centers Climate Change Litigation databases.This section provides a broad overview of the data of global climate litigation,including a comprehensive regional analysis.Part 3 assesses curre
66、nt trends in climate litigation.Those trends reflect continued and increasing numbers of cases focused on one or more of the following:(i)The use of“climate rights”in climate litigation(ii)Domestic enforcement(iii)Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in the ground(iv)Corporate liability and respons
67、ibility(v)Climate disclosures and greenwashing(vi)Failure to adapt and the impacts of adaptationPart 4 reflects the predictions for emerging trends,including a few updates from the 2020 Litigation Report and others that are freshly observed.Notably,both the 2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports conclude
68、that litigation is central to efforts to compel governments and corporate actors to undertake more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation goals,and litigants around the world continue to expand the range of theories under which defendants are obligated to take climate-related action.Last
69、ly,summaries of significant cases appear throughout this report,providing context and examples of those issues and the trends they comprise.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 1 Page 5 Unsplash/Natv han CimaPart 1:The importance of climate change litigation Page 6 Global Climate
70、 Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 1Part 1:The importance of climate change litigationWhile GHG emissions temporarily dropped in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic,emissions rebounded by the end of the year(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC 2022).In 2021,global
71、energy-related carbon dioxide(CO2)emissions rose by 6 per cent above 2020 levels to 36.3 billion tons,their highest level ever(International Energy Agency 2022).Overall,CO2 emissions rebounded by 4.8 per cent in 2021,consuming 8.7 per cent of the remaining carbon budget(IPCC 2018)5 for limiting anth
72、ropogenic warming to 1.5C(Liu et al.2022).5 Total carbon budget is defined by the IPCC as:“Estimated cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from a given start date to the time that anthropogenic CO2 emissions reach net zero that would result,at some probability,in limiting global warming
73、to a given level,accounting for the impact of other anthropogenic emissions.”6 The phrase“Global South”refers broadly to the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean,Asia,Africa and Oceania,and denotes regions that are mostly low-income and often politically or culturally marginalized.However,it m
74、ust be noted that the Global South is not a homogeneous group of countries,and that legal development and legal capacity vary by country.At 1.1C,global warming is already causing widespread disruption worldwide,including droughts,extreme heat,record floods and storms,food insecurity,wildfires,the ha
75、rming of species and ecosystems as well as the enabling of vector-borne disease transmission(IPCC 2022).Scientists have warned that every tenth of a degree of additional warming will escalate threats to people,species and ecosystems(IPCC 2022).Furthermore,the effects of climate change are disproport
76、ionately felt across the globe and by populations in vulnerable situations,causing gender and income inequalities and development challenges,especially in the Global South and in small island developing States.6 IPCC has stated that climate change unequivocally endangers the well-being of people and
77、 ecosystems Unsplash/Lawrence MakoonaGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 1 Page 7throughout the globe.Delayed climate action poses irreversible risks,with a narrow window of opportunity to realize a sustainable and liveable future.Climate change litigation provides civil society
78、,individuals and others with one possible avenue to address inadequate responses by governments and the private sector to the climate crisis.In the lead-up to the twenty-seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC),the UNFCCC secretariat anal
79、ysed the nationally determined contributions(NDCs)of 166 countries,covering 94.9 per cent of the total global emissions in 2019(UNFCCC 2022a).To keep the long-term temperature goal set out in article 2 of the Paris Agreement and limit global temperature rise to 1.5C,countries need to significantly c
80、ut global emissions in half by the end of this decade.However,the UNFCCC secretariat estimated that,based on the latest NDCs,countries would likely use up 89 per cent of the remaining carbon budget in 20202030(UNFCCC 2022a).In its 2022 Emissions Gap Report,UNEP calculated that recent pledges“make a
81、negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions”and that current policies point to a 2.8C warming by the end of the century.While that trajectory is a significant improvement from the prior estimate of a 4C warming scenario,it remains far beyond the goals set forth under the Paris Agreement(UNEP 2
82、022).At the same time,in its 2021 Production Gap Report,UNEP concluded that governments plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5C.The Glasgow Climate Pact(Decision 1/CMA.3)has called on countries to“revisit and s
83、trengthen”their 2030 targets by the end of 2022 to align them with the Paris Agreements temperature goals(UNFCCC 2022b).It also asks all countries that have not yet done so to submit long-term strategies to 2050,aiming for a just transition to net-zero emissions around mid-century.Climate change lit
84、igation provides civil society,individuals and others with one possible avenue to address inadequate responses by governments and the private sector to the climate crisis.In climate cases,plaintiffs,petitioners,applicants,complainants or communicants(referred throughout as plaintiffs),through a vari
85、ety of legal strategies in a wide range of national and international jurisdictions,often seek to compel more ambitious mitigation and adaptation goals from the public and private sectors.However,plaintiffs also sometimes seek to challenge climate regulations and reduce climate ambition.In its Sixth
86、 Assessment Report,IPCC recognized,for the first time(with medium confidence),that climate litigation has influenced the outcome and ambition of climate governance(Dubash et al.2022).IPCC also identified climate litigation as an important avenue for actors to influence climate policy outside of the
87、formal UNFCCC processes(Dubash et al.2022).In addition,successful cases brought by plaintiffs have motivated the filing of similar claims in other jurisdictions.For example,the decision in Urgenda Foundation v.State of the Netherlands,the first time in which a court found a government to be responsi
88、ble for mitigating GHG emissions,has brought a wave of ambition cases in other countries,most of which specifically mention the decision Page 8 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 1despite it not being an authoritative source of law beyond the Netherlands(Supreme Court of the Ne
89、therlands 2019).7 With increased scientific research on climate science and attribution,and with novel legal theories being explored under international and domestic climate law,climate litigation continues to expand in scope.Additionally,it is worth noting the energy crisis that resulted from the a
90、ggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine.In a few instances,governments plans to rearrange their energy supplies away from fossil fuels were adapted to these circumstances,further jeopardizing the achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement(Climate Action Tracker 2022).With gas produc
91、tion and infrastructure expansion planned to respond to the energy crisis worldwide,climate litigation may arise to avoid further delays in the energy transition.7 Urgenda Foundation v.State of the Netherlands,Supreme Court of the Netherlands,Case No.19/00135,20 December 2019(Netherlands).For the im
92、portance of the case,see the 2020 Litigation Report,pages 13 and 15.Unsplash/Markus SpiskeGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 9 Flickr/U.S.Department of AgriculturePart 2:Overview of global climate litigation Page 10 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Par
93、t 2Part 2:Overview of global climate litigationPart 2 surveys the current status of global climate change litigation,drawn from the cases included in the Sabin Centers Climate Change Litigation databases.Unless otherwise noted,the cases featured in this 2023 Litigation Report were updated until Dece
94、mber 2022 and were pending determination by the forums in which they were brought.I.MethodologyThis report adopts the narrow approach to defining climate change litigation used by the Sabin Center in identifying cases for inclusion in its Climate Change Litigation databases(see Box 1:Defining climat
95、e change litigation)(Sabin Center 2022a).Under this definition,climate change litigation includes cases before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies that involve material issues of climate change science,policy or law.Thus,cases must satisfy two key criteria for inclusion.First,cases must generally be
96、brought before judicial bodies,though in some exemplary instances matters brought before administrative or investigatory bodies are also included.Second,climate change law,policy or science must be a material issue of law or fact in the case.Cases that make only a passing reference to climate change
97、 but do not address climate-relevant laws,policies or actions in a meaningful way are omitted.In general,cases that may directly impact climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies,but do not explicitly raise climate issues,are also not included.The databases and this report refer to internat
98、ional or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies in addition to specific jurisdictions.These include complaints submitted to special procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council(HRC),the United Nations Secretary-General,UNFCCC and other United Nations bo
99、dies Unsplash/Joel De VriendGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 11(including the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child),arbitration tribunals(International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ICSID,Stock
100、holm Chamber of Commerce and the Permanent Court of Arbitration),and complaints before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD).As part of its continual effort to update and maintain the Global Climate Change Litigation Database,the Sabin Center launched the Network in Decemb
101、er 2021.As at 31 December 2022,the Network includes 113 practitioners and scholars who act as“national rapporteurs”for 107 jurisdictions or international or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies(Sabin Center 2022b).In addition,several researchers and academic i
102、nstitutions have established national or regional climate litigation databases,including in Latin America and the Caribbean(Tigre,Ortzar and Dvalos 2022),Brazil(JusClima 2030 2022;JUMA 2022),Australia(University of Melbourne 2022),and Southeast Asia(Litigasia 2022).While the definitions of relevant
103、litigation and the methodologies for case collection differ among the databases,the Sabin 8 The Sabin Center has partnered with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense for rights-based cases in Latin America and the Caribbean,as well as with national databases in Brazil and Australia
104、.Center has partnered with some of them to share information about cases using the Sabin Centers definition where applicable.8 Unless otherwise noted,cases were updated until 31 December 2022.This report deals with a fast-moving field and the subject matter may become quickly outdated.Readers are ad
105、vised to check the main sources cited for updates and new materials.However,UNEP considers the fundamentals of climate change litigation as discussed in this report to be more durable and likely to remain relevant in the immediate future.This report adopts a qualitative approach to surveying global
106、climate litigation,informed by quantitative information where relevant.In identifying trends and cases as significant,the report considers the potential impact of the litigation within a jurisdiction and beyond the case itself,the novelty and complexity of the legal theories and issues involved,and
107、the likelihood of the litigation influencing future cases and climate policy.Unsplash/Luca NardPage 12 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 22,1801,550884Total number of climate change casesNumber of cases filed in all jurisdictions other than the United States of America24Number
108、 of jurisdictions represented(including international or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicial bodies)Number of cases filed in the United States of America201765420201,2001,52220222017Legend:6539Growth of climate litigation as represented in UNEPs 2017,2020 and 2023 Lit
109、igation Reports 230350658Covering cumulative cases until:March 201720202022July 2020December 20229Figure 1.9 As a result of the Network,the number of cases in the Sabin Centers databases have increased substantially.These include cases filed before 2020 as well as new cases filed in 2021 and 2022.Al
110、l cases added to the database as a result of the Networks contributions are included in this report,including those filed before the publication of the 2020 Litigation Report.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 13II.Survey of climate change litigation10 The jurisdictions
111、in which climate change cases were identified in the database for the first time since the publication of the 2020 Litigation Report are:China,Czech Republic,Guyana,Estonia,Finland,Papua New Guinea,Republic of Korea,Russian Federation,Trkiye,the East African Court of Justice and the International Tr
112、ibunal for the Law of the Seas.Climate litigation is a growing field,and both the number of cases filed and the number of jurisdictions within which they have been brought have increased in recent years.The 2020 Litigation Report identified 1,550 cases brought in 39 jurisdictions,including internati
113、onal or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies,such as special procedures of HRC,arbitration tribunals,international adjudicatory bodies and the European Union.These include 1,200 cases in the United States of America and 350 cases in all other jurisdictions com
114、bined.As at 31 December 2022,the cumulative number of cases tracked in the Sabin Centers databases has increased,with 2,180 climate change cases filed in 65 jurisdictions.10 This number includes 1,522 cases in the United States of America and 658 cases in all other jurisdictions combined.Figure 1 co
115、mpares the numbers of cases and jurisdictions covered in the three instalments of the litigation reports.Flickr/UNEPPage 14 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2As Figure 1 shows,the overall number of climate litigation cases has grown since 2017,and the cumulative number of cas
116、es is now 2.5 times higher than five years ago.Figure 2 provides a visual representation of how climate litigation cases worldwide are steadily increasing.The increase in the number of cases since the 2020 report relates not only to cases filed in the period covered in this report(July 2020 to Decem
117、ber 2022)but also,as detailed in Part 4,older cases recently added to the databases as part of the creation of the Network.11 For the countries where the Sabin Centers Network does not yet have rapporteurs,the Sabin Center relies on other sources of data,including cases mentioned in the media and in
118、 scholarship,among others.Still,there are countries in which there is still limited information about the extent of climate litigation.Therefore,it is likely that more cases in jurisdictions not yet represented will be brought to light in the near future.The research conducted by the Sabin Center on
119、 the databases is an ongoing process.While this research has significantly expanded in geographical scope,its coverage of jurisdictions is not yet universal.11 Growth of climate change litigation as represented in the 2017,2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports Legend:050002500202220202017Total
120、 casesUSARest of the worldFigure 2.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 15Figure 3 shows the increase in the geographic representation covered in the three instalments of the report.The 2017 Litigation Report included cases from 24 jurisdictions and the 2020 report from 39
121、 jurisdictions.This 2023 report includes cases from 65 jurisdictions.These include international or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies.This proliferation shows that climate litigation is expanding its regional reach,with cases in the Global South particularl
122、y gaining new visibility.III.Regional representation of climate change litigationAs at 31 December 2022,the Sabin Centers Climate Change Litigation databases include 1,522 cases filed in the United States of America and 658 filed in all other jurisdictions combined,including international or regiona
123、l courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies,such as special procedures of HRC,arbitration tribunals and the European Union.Figure 4(overleaf)shows the number of cases per jurisdiction.Number of jurisdictions covered in the databases as represented in the 2017,2020 and 2023
124、Litigation Reports65 in 202239 in 202024 in 2017Legend:202220202017Figure 3.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 17Page 16 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2127cases in Australia22cases in France18cases in Mexico17cases in Spain12cases in Indonesia7
125、9cases in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland38cases in Germany62cases in the European Union34cases in Canada30cases in Brazil26cases in New Zealand12cases in the European Court of Human Rightscases in India11cases in the UNFCCC1199910cases in Argentinacases in Colombiacases in
126、Polandcases in South Africacases in ICSID9cases in Chile72 cases in China2 cases in Denmark2 cases in Kenya2 cases in Nigeria2 cases in Norway2 cases in Sweden2 cases in Trkiye2 cases in Uganda2 cases in the United Nations Human Rights Committee2 cases in the International Court of Justice2 cases in
127、 Ukraine1 case in the East African Court of Justice1 case in the European Committee of Social Rights1 case in the International Criminal Court1 case in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea1 case in the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child1 case submitted to the special pr
128、ocedures of the United Nations Secretary-General1 case in Estonia1 case in Finland1 case in Luxembourg1 case in Nepal1 case in Papua New Guinea1 case in Peru1 case in the Russian Federation1 case in Thailand1 case in Sloveniacases in Pakistancases in Belgiumcases in Japancases in the Inter-AmericanS
129、ystem of Human Rights cases in Ireland cases in Italycases in the Netherlands7665554Cumulative number of cases by jurisdiction(including all cases in the Sabin Centers databases as at 31 December 2022)Figure 4.1,522cases in the United States of America(70%)3 cases in Ecuador3 cases in Austria3 cases
130、 in the Czech Republic3 cases in Guyana3 cases in the Philippines3 cases in the Republic of Korea3 cases in Switzerland3 cases in the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce3 cases submitted to the United Nations special procedures (Special Rapporteurs)3 cases in the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlemen
131、t BodyNote:UNFCCC cases refer to non-compliance procedures under UNFCCC.1 case in the Permanent Court of ArbitrationPage 18 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2Figure 5 shows the 10 jurisdictions,excluding the United States of America and the European Union,with the highest num
132、ber of cases,which are(in descending order)Australia,the United Kingdom,Canada,Brazil,New Zealand,Germany,France,Spain,Mexico and India.12 While cases in the United States of America still represent an overwhelming majority of cases globally,the overall percentage of cases outside the United States
133、of America is increasing.In the 2017 Litigation 12 The likelihood that climate litigation will be filed in a particular country depends on a range of factors that include the countrys legal culture,whether unsuccessful plaintiffs must pay the defendants costs,the degree of frustration over governmen
134、ts actions or inactions on climate change,how frequent,extensive,and damaging climate-driven physical losses are becoming,and the existence of regulatory frameworks and judicial precedent that establish enforceable climate-related rights and obligations.Report,cases in the United States of America r
135、epresented 74 per cent of the total.In 2020,it was 77 per cent and in 2022,it was 70 per cent.Figure 6 illustrates that,excluding cases in the United States of America,Europe as a region has the highest percentage of cases with 31.2 per cent.Oceania represents 23.2 per cent of the cases.Internationa
136、l or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies represent 19.2 per cent of the global cases.South America has 9.5 per cent Top 10 jurisdictions with the highest number of cumulative cases(excluding the United States of America and European Union)0306090150120MexicoS
137、painIndonesiaFranceNew ZealandBrazilCanadaGermany United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandAustralia Figure 5.2622181712Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 19Global distribution of all cases according to geographical representation (excluding cases i
138、n the United States of America)through 31 December 2022*International or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies AfricaAsiaNorth AmericaInternational and regional*South AmericaOceaniaEurope2.3%31.2%23.2%19.2%9.5%7.9%6.6%Figure 6.(Global Change Data Lab 2015)Note:
139、This figure has been developed using the regional definitions as contained in Our World in Data.The category“International and regional”,as noted elsewhere in this report,refers to cases brought before international or regional courts,tribunals,quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies.Page
140、 20 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2of the cases while North America has 7.9 per cent.There is currently no domestic climate litigation in the Caribbean.Asia and Africa still have the lowest representation with 6.6 per cent and 2.3 per cent respectively.As noted in the intr
141、oduction,some regions remain underrepresented due to gaps in the current research.As the Sabin Centers Network develops,it is likely that these numbers will change.Litigation in the Global South represents a small but growing percentage of global climate litigation,and these cases are analysed here
142、along with cases from the Global North.While the definition of Global South remains contested,the term is widely used in the context of multilateral debate about the transformation of the global order,especially in reference to emerging economies (Gray and Gills 2016).According to the Climate Change
143、 Litigation databases,there have been 114 cases in the Global South,421 in the Global North(or 1,943 cases including the United States of America)and 127 in international and regional courts,tribunals and adjudicatory bodies(which can include plaintiffs from the Global North and Global South).As dep
144、icted in Figure 7,if considering the cases in the United States of America,cases in the Global North represent 89 per cent of the total number of climate litigation cases.Cases in the Global South amount to 5.2 per cent while international and regional cases amount to 5.8 per cent.As shown in Figure
145、 8,excluding the United States cases from the number of cases in the Global North,the percentage share of cases in the Global South accounts for 17.2 per cent of cases.Pexels/Brett SaylesGlobal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 21Cumulative percentage of cases according to geo
146、graphical representation(cases in the Global South versus cases in the Global North including cases from the United States of America)through 31 December 2022 Cumulative percentage of cases according to geographical representation (cases in the Global South versus cases in the Global North excluding
147、 the United States of America)through 31 December 202289%5.8%5.2%19.2%17.2%63.6%Legend:International and regional jurisdictionsGlobal SouthGlobal NorthFigure 7.Figure 8.Page 22 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2Box 2:Changes in the data set since the launch of the Peer Review
148、 Network of Global Climate LitigationSince the launch of the Network in 2021,the Sabin Center has added 58 cases to the database which were filed prior to the publication of the 2020 status report.As these cases were added to the database after the 2020 Litigation Report was published,they were not
149、analysed in that report.These cases are included in the analysis of the present report and represent an ongoing effort to fill the gaps in the geographic representation in the database.Of these,as Figure 9 shows,18 cases come from Asia,13 from Europe,12 from South America,6 from North America,2 from
150、 Africa,2 from Oceania,and 5 from international and regional courts,tribunals and adjudicatory bodies.Regional distribution of pre-2020 backlog cases138.6%International and Regional3.4%Africa31.0%Asia3.4%Oceania 22.4%Europe20.7%South America10.3%North AmericaFigure 9.Cases identified here have been
151、filed between 2009 and 1 July 2020,the cut-off date for cases examined in the 2020 Litigation Report.This box summarizes some highlights that relate to this data set specifically.The analysis is divided by geographical region rather than by topic,as is the rest of the report,to show the expansion in
152、 the databases geographical coverage.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2 Page 23A significant proportion of pre-2020 cases from Asia were challenges brought by the Government of Indonesia against palm oil,mining and logging companies for the destruction of peatland ecosystems.
153、In particular,six cases filed between 2012 to 2019 establish the Indonesian Governments right to sue palm oil producers for GHG emissions and loss of carbon sinks from peatland destruction,as well as the actual cost to restore the ecosystem to its original state(Minister of Environment v.PT Kalista
154、Alam 2017;Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Jatim Jaya Perkasa 2018;Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Palmina Utama 2018;Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Arjuna Utama Sawit 2020;Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Asia Palem Lestari 2021;Ministry of Environment and For
155、estry v.PT Rambang Agro Jaya 2021).13 In these cases,climate damages arising from GHG emissions were calculated by assigning a numerical value to the cost of emitting a unit of carbon,then calculating the units of carbon emitted by a corporations actions.In Shrestha v.Office of the Prime Minister et
156、 al.(2018)Nepals Supreme Court ruled that climate change impaired the petitioners constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment and a dignified life and ordered the Government to enact a new climate law.14 Pre-2020 cases from South America focused largely on the global and local costs of
157、resource extraction.In Ecuador,in 2020,gas flaring was declared unlawful because it violates Ecuadorians rights to a healthy environment and health as well as Ecuadors international climate commitments(Herrera Carrion et al.v.Ministry of the Environment et al.Caso Mecheros 2021).15 In Colombia,in 20
158、16,the Constitutional Court ruled that:(i)The Colombian Governments failure to protect Indigenous and Afro-descendent communities from river pollution from mining violated their fundamental rights(ii)The river in question had legal personhood(iii)The Government needed to consider climate change in f
159、uture mining and energy policy decisions (Atrato River Decision T-622/16 2016)16 In 2017,that same court ruled that diverting a river for mining violated the Wayu Indigenous communitys right to water,health and food sovereignty,in part because climate change had already impacted the rivers water sup
160、ply,and conducting mining activities in a climate-vulnerable region was likely to cause significant harm.The court ordered the mining company to pay compensation and begin mitigation and correction efforts(Decision SU-698/17 2017).17 In 2020,the Colombian Governments issuing of mining permits was de
161、clared impermissible when climate change already threatened ecosystem health and water security.The Constitutional Court ordered the mining activities to be halted immediately(Combeima River Case 2020).1813 Minister of Environment v.PT Kalista Alam,Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia,Decision
162、 No.12/PDT.G/2012/PN.MBO,18 April 2017(Indonesia).Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Jatim Jaya Perkasa,Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia,Decision No.108/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Jkt.Utr.,28 June 2018(Indonesia).Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Palmina Utama,Banjarmasin Court of Appeal
163、,Decision No.48/PDT/2018/PT.BJM,15 August 2018(Indonesia).Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Arjuna Utama Sawit,Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia,Decision No.213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN.Plk,10 December 2020(Indonesia).Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Asia Palem Lestari,District Cou
164、rt of North Jakarta,Decision No.607/Pdt.G-LH/2019/PN.Jkt.Utr,5 January 2021(Indonesia).Ministry of Environment and Forestry v.PT Rambang Agro Jaya,District Court of Central Jakarta,Decision No.445/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst,11 January 2021(Indonesia).14 Shrestha v.Office of the Prime Minister et al.,Supr
165、eme Court of Nepal,Order 074-WO-0283,25 December 2018(Nepal).15 Herrera Carrion et al.v.Ministry of the Environment et al.(Caso Mecheros),Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbo,Juicio No.270,29 July 2021(Ecuador).16 Atrato River Decision T-622/16,Constitutional Court of Colombia,10 Novemb
166、er 2016(Colombia).17 Decision SU-698/17,Constitutional Court of Colombia,28 November 2017(Colombia).18 Combeima River Case,Administrative Tribunals of Colombia,73001-2331-000-2011-00611-03,14 September 2020.Page 24 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 2Cases pre-2020 from North A
167、merica focused largely on the national energy sector and climate change policy.In Canada,an NGO challenged the Canadian Governments approval of a new liquefied natural gas facility because(among other things)the initial environmental impact assessment(EIA)did not consider GHG emissions for the entir
168、e lifetime of the facility(SkeenaWild Conservation Trust v.Government of Canada 2019).19 That case was withdrawn after the project investor walked away from the project.Cases pre-2020 from Europe included citizen and NGO challenges to inaction on Paris Agreement commitments.In France and the United
169、Kingdom,climate activists faced criminal charges for actions taken during climate protests(R.v.Brown Extinction Rebellion protest,London City Airport 2022).20 In ADP Group(Paris Airports)v.Climate Activists(2021),activists who illegally entered the tarmac at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport and halte
170、d airport operations were acquitted because their actions were taken in a“state of necessity”to warn of future danger,namely climate change.21 Cases from international and regional bodies included challenges to the European Unions environmental legislation by impacted parties in Southeast Asia.Two p
171、re-2020 cases currently before the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body have challenged European Union regulations on“high-risk”biofuels on the basis that they unnecessarily advantage intra-European Union producers and disadvantage Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil producers,in violation
172、 of international trade agreements(DS-593:European Union Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-based Biofuels 2019;DS-600:European Union and Certain Member States Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels 2021).22 The measures taken by the European Union
173、were implemented to pursue policy objectives of climate change mitigation,environmental protection,preserving biodiversity and ensuring energy security and sustainability.The two cases from Oceania both originated in New Zealand.One case did not allow the urgency of the climate crisis as a defence t
174、o criminal liability when lawful protest activities were available to climate activists(Police v.Hanafin 2020).23 Another case challenged a local governments decision not to sign a“Local Leaders Climate Change Declaration”,an agreement to take aggressive climate change action and compel the national
175、 Government to do the same.The High Court of New Zealand ruled that the local governments decision not to sign the pledge was unreasonable in light of the local impacts of climate change and ordered the government to reconsider its decision(Hauraki Coromandel Climate Action Incorporated v.Thames-Cor
176、omandel District Council 2020).24 In South Africa,the High Court rejected a case by the City of Cape Town seeking authorization to purchase renewable electricity from independent power producers without obtaining approval from the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy.That case was rejected becau
177、se it was determined to be an intergovernmental dispute that should be settled outside of court(The City of Cape Town v.National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Minister of Energy 2020).25 19 SkeenaWild Conservation Trust v.Government of Canada,Federal Court of Canada,Application No.T-1836-16,2
178、7 October 2016(Canada).20 R.v.Brown(Extinction Rebellion protest,London City Airport),Court of Appeal(Criminal Division)of England and Wales,Case No.2022 EWCA Crim 6,14 January 2022(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).21 ADP Group(Paris Airports)v.Climate Activists,Court of First I
179、nstance of Bobigny,Tribunal Correctional,12 November 2021(France).22 DS-593:European Union Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-based Biofuels,World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body,Doc.No.WT/DS593/1,9 December 2019(World Trade Organization).DS-600:European Union and Cert
180、ain Member States Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels,World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body,Doc.No.WT/DS600/1,15 January 2021(World Trade Organization).23 Police v.Hanafin,District Court of New Zealand,Decision No.CRI-2019-,13 November 2020(New
181、Zealand).24 Hauraki Coromandel Climate Action Incorporated v.Thames-Coromandel District Council,High Court of New Zealand,Case No.CIV-2019-419-173,NZHC 3228,8 December 2020(New Zealand).25 The City of Cape Town v.National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Minister of Energy,High Court of South Af
182、rica,Case No.51765/17,11 August 2020(South Africa).Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3 Page 25 Flickr/UNEPPart 3:The state of climate change litigationPage 26 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3Part 3:The state of climate change litigation1 As the analys
183、is in this Part 3 indicates,several cases demonstrate features of more than one trend and thus appear in multiple sections.This section describes and summarizes the status of climate change litigation throughout the world.It discusses key cases and how they are thematically linked to larger categori
184、es of climate cases.It identifies six important categories into which most cases can be placed and discusses issues that both arise in and run through these cases.Climate cases to date often fall into one or more of six categories:(i)The use of“climate rights”in climate litigation(ii)Domestic enforc
185、ement(iii)Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in the ground(iv)Corporate liability and responsibility(v)Climate disclosures and greenwashing(vi)Failure to adapt and the impacts of adaptation1I.The use of“climate rights”in climate litigation One of the most visible categories of climate cases inclu
186、des actions asserting that insufficient climate mitigation or adaptation violates plaintiffs rights,including the rights to life,health,food,water,liberty,family life,a healthy environment,a safe climate and more.Here,this category is referred to as“climate rights”.Climate rights encompass the ways
187、in which national constitution,human rights law and other laws in general,imbue individuals and communities with rights to climate mitigation and adaptation action.It refers to both international and domestic commitments made to ensure that people will enjoy Flickr/Roosevelt SkerritGlobal Climate Li
188、tigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3 Page 27a safe and stable climate as well as other rights that do not explicitly focus on climate but have an impact in addressing climate change.These rights are variously known as human rights,environmental rights and human rights obligations related to the
189、 environment.As women are disproportionately impacted by climate change,womens rights remain a key category of human rights that directly fulfils Sustainable Development Goal 5 on gender equality and the empowerment of women.Obligations pertaining to climate rights fall into three main categories:su
190、bstantive obligations,procedural obligations,and obligations relating to persons and groups in vulnerable situations(United Nations 2022).Cases brought in domestic forums have argued that climate rights emerge from existing constitutional and fundamental rights under domestic law,and often relate to
191、 international obligations under the Paris Agreement.Cases brought in domestic forums have argued that climate rights emerge from existing constitutional and fundamental rights under domestic law,and often relate to international obligations under the Paris Agreement.The 2017 and 2020 Litigation Rep
192、orts highlighted climate rights cases in Austria,Australia,Brazil,Canada,Colombia,India,Netherlands,Norway,Pakistan,Peru,Philippines,the Republic of Korea,Switzerland and the United States of America.Several of these cases are still pending as at 31 December 2022.However,many cases are still not bro
193、ught to the forefront as financial challenges,intimidation,lack of know-how and other barriers remain in place.These barriers are especially harmful for vulnerable groups including Indigenous Peoples,women and those from a lower socioeconomic status,the majority of whom are women.The 2020 Litigation
194、 Report also highlighted a group of cases in international forums asserting that climate change violates international human rights.Since 2020,more claims have been brought and decisions have been reached in several instances.This section is divided between international and domestic climate rights
195、cases.Unsplash/Aditya JoshiPage 28 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3A.International climate rights casesThe number of climate rights claims before and decisions by international adjudicative bodies has been growing.While still a small percentage of cases,these claims build o
196、n a body of soft law,including statements from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights(IACtHR),HRC and the United Nations General Assembly.In October 2021,HRC adopted a historic resolution(A/HRC/RES/48/13)recognizing the human right to a clean,healthy and sustainable environment.HRC recognized that
197、 climate change,the environmental crisis and biodiversity loss have negative impacts on the enjoyment of all human rights,“including the rights to life,to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,to an adequate standard of living,to adequate food,to housing,to s
198、afe drinking water and sanitation and to participation in cultural life,for present and future generations”.In July 2022,Member States of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution(A/RES/76/300)that recognizes that a clean,healthy and sustainable environment is a human right.W
199、hile the resolution is not legally binding,it can give rise to constitutional and legal changes that could positively impact the environment and human well-being.Recognizing the right to a healthy environment at the international level is likely to reinforce rights-based claims before adjudicatory b
200、odies.Similar developments on the recognition of a right to a healthy environment are also taking place at the regional level.For example,the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has presented a draft of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR)which would an
201、chor the right to a safe,clean,healthy and sustainable environment and make such a right enforceable in law in all countries which ratified it(United Nations 2021).2 Sacchi,et al.v.Argentina,et al.,United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child,Communication No.104/2019(Argentina),Communication
202、 No.105/2019(Brazil),Communication No.106/2019(France),Communication No.107/2019(Germany),Communication No.108/2019(Trkiye),12 October 2021(United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child).i.Cases at the United NationsTo date,there have been several petitions filed with various United Nations bo
203、dies.In October 2021,the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child rejected a petition filed by 16 children in Sacchi,et al.v.Argentina,et al.(2021),which alleged that Argentina,Brazil,France,Germany and Trkiye violated their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
204、Child by making insufficient cuts to GHG emissions.2 The petitions were dismissed due to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.Nonetheless,the findings and legal reasoning of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child provide valuable guidance on childrens rights in the context of clim
205、ate change.First,the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child found that the potential harm of the States acts or omissions regarding their carbon emissions was reasonably foreseeable to the States.Second,it affirmed that the States carbon emissions actively contribute to the harmful effe
206、cts of climate change and that these are not limited to emissions within these States boundaries.Third,it concluded that the petitioners had pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the violation of their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a result of the Stat
207、es carbon emissions was reasonably foreseeable and that they have personally experienced significant harm(Tigre and Lichet 2021).After the dismissal of the petition,the same children submitted a petition to the United Nations Secretary-General asking him to declare a climate emergency,which would mo
208、bilize a United Nations comprehensive response to the climate emergency and activate a crisis management team to oversee immediate and comprehensive global action on climate change(Sacchi et al.2021).The petition is still pending as at 31 December 2022.Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Re
209、view|Part 3 Page 29Box 3:Decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the Torres Strait Islanders Petition3 Daniel Billy and others v.Australia(Torres Strait Islanders Petition),United Nations Human Rights Committee,CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019,23 September 2022(United Nations Human Rights Com
210、mittee).4 Rights of Indigenous People in Addressing Climate-Forced Displacement,United Nations Special Rapporteurs,Ref.AL USA 16/2020,15 September 2020(United Nations).5 Environmental Justice Australia(EJA)v.Australia,United Nations Special Rapporteurs,25 October 2021(United Nations).In September 20
211、22,the United Nations Human Rights Committee delivered a landmark decision in Daniel Billy and others v.Australia(Torres Strait Islanders Petition)(2022),finding that the Australian Government was violating its human rights obligations to the Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders through climate change
212、 inaction.3 The Committee found that Australias failure to adequately protect Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders against adverse impacts of climate change violated their rights to enjoy their culture and be free from arbitrary interferences with their private life,family and home.For the first time,
213、a United Nations body had found that a country violated international human rights law through inadequate climate policy.The decision also represents the first time that Indigenous Peoples right to culture was found to be at risk from climate impacts.The United Nations Human Rights Committee recogni
214、zed that climate change was currently impacting the claimants daily lives and that,to the extent that their rights are being violated,Australias poor climate record was a violation of their right to family life and right to culture.The decision also specifically called on Australia to adopt signific
215、ant climate adaptation measures.Petitions to United Nations bodies do not require an official response.However,they can lead to statements from the United Nations special procedures that are relevant for climate litigation.To date,there has not been any formal action in response to a petition that w
216、as brought to the United Nations special procedures by five tribes in Louisiana and Alaska,United States of America.The petition has highlighted the negative impacts of climate change and claimed that the Government of the United States of America has violated their human rights in failing to addres
217、s climate displacement(Rights of Indigenous People in Addressing Climate-Forced Displacement 2020).4 In October 2021,a petition was submitted to the United Nations special procedures by Environmental Justice Australia on behalf of several young Australians.The petition relied on the climate vulnerab
218、ility of young people,First Nations people and people with disabilities,and argued that climate change exacerbates existing inequalities and directly undermines their health and cultural rights(Environmental Justice Australia(EJA)v.Australia 2021).5 It asked the Special Rapporteurs to seek an explan
219、ation from Australia on how:(i)The States climate inaction is consistent with its human rights obligations(ii)The current conduct is compatible with the human rights of young Australians and a pathway towards limiting the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels(iii)Its current NDC h
220、as involved young people in Australia in the process of developing NDC and whether the State will establish a permanent forum to include the participation of young people from impacted communitiesIn addition,the complaint called on the Special Rapporteurs to urge Australia to set a 2030 emissions re
221、duction target consistent with its human rights obligations.Page 30 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3In The Planet v.Bolsonaro(2021),a communication was filed to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court(ICC)in 2021 requesting an investigation into for
222、mer Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for his role in crimes against humanity resulting from ongoing deforestation and related activities in the Amazon rainforest.6 The communication alleged that former President Bolsonaro has promoted and facilitated a widespread attack on the Amazon biome and tho
223、se who defend and depend upon it,which represents a clear and extant threat to humanity itself.The complaint argued that global climate security is dependent on the Amazon and its key role in regulating global 6 The Planet v.Bolsonaro,ICC,12 October 2021(ICC).temperatures and weather patterns,and th
224、at the severe damage to the functions of the Amazon biome caused by deforestation,conversion of deforested land to cattle ranching and vast intentional forest fires has disrupted this critical ecosystem,turning it from a carbon sink to a carbon source.The Office of the Prosecutor must first conduct
225、an analysis of information to determine whether the statutory threshold of“a reasonable basis to proceed”to start an investigation is met,according to ICC rules(ICC 2016).If there is an investigation,it would be the first time that an investigation relating to crimes against humanity would be based
226、on alleged environmental and climate harm.Box 4:Initiatives to seek advisory opinions on climate change from international courtsInternational adjudicating bodies are not only mandated to settle disputes,but also to issue advisory opinions,which may be of great value in the development of internatio
227、nal law.Two requests for advisory opinions of international courts are currently in progress.In 2022,the Republic of Vanuatu initiated an international campaign to seek an advisory opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice.The draft zero of the request for advisory opinion(A/
228、77/L.58),which is currently under negotiation and may be subject to changes,includes the following questions:(a)What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment for present and future generations (b)What are
229、the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they,by their acts and omissions,have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment,with respect to:(i)States,including,in particular,small island developing States,which due to their geographical circ
230、umstances and level of development,are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?(ii)Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?An International Court of Justice adviso
231、ry opinion may be issued at the request of the United Nations General Assembly,the Security Council or by other United Nations organs and specialized agencies.The Vanuatu campaign is pursuing the United Nations General Assembly route,which requires support from the majority of United Nations members
232、 present and voting(Savaresi,Kulovesi and van Asselt 2021).Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3 Page 31In addition,Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu signed an agreement for the establishment of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law,to seek a
233、n advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea(ITLOS)(De Shong 2021).The Climate Commission Agreement is open to accession by any other members of the Alliance of Small Island States(Freestone,Barnes and Akhavan 2021).ITLOS can give an advisory opinion on a legal question
234、on the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to climate change,which could include,for example,questions on sea level rise and ocean acidification and deoxygenation(Cruz Carrillo 2021).The advisory jurisdiction of ITLOS can be triggered by three elemen
235、ts:1.An international agreement related to the purposes of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea clearly providing for the submission to the tribunal of a request for an advisory opinion 2.The request must be transmitted to ITLOS by an authorized body or per that agreement 3.The request mu
236、st be premised on a legal question In December 2022,the co-chairs of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law submitted a request for an advisory opinion from ITLOS(Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Chan
237、ge and International Law 2022).7 The Commission referred the following legal questions to ITLOS:“What are the specific obligations of State Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(the UNCLOS),including under Part XII:(a)to prevent,reduce and control pollution of the marine env
238、ironment in relation to the deleterious effects that result or are likely to result from climate change,including through ocean warming and sea level rise,and ocean acidification,which are caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere?(b)to protect and preserve the marine envi
239、ronment in relation to climate change impacts,including ocean warming and sea level rise,and ocean acidification?”7 Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law,ITLOS,Case No.31/2022,12 December 2022(ITLOS).8 A Request for
240、 an Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Concerning the Interpretation of Article 1(1),4(1)and 5(1)of the American Convention on Human Rights,IACtHR,Advisory Opinion OC-23/17,15 November 2017(IACtHR).ii.Regional casesAt the regional level,climate cases are proceeding in sev
241、eral venues.These cases are discussed below.a.Cases before the Inter-American System of Human Rights The 2020 Litigation Report noted that IACtHR issued advisory opinion OC-23/17 in 2019,in response to a request from Colombia,in which the court concluded that the right to a healthy environment is a
242、human right under the American Convention on Human Rights(A Request for an Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Concerning the Interpretation of Article 1(1),4(1)and 5(1)of the American Convention on Human Rights 2017).8 The opinion addressed climate change throughout,ackno
243、wledging that climate change is widely understood to interfere with the enjoyment of human rights and articulating a States extraterritorial responsibility for environmental damage and climate change(Tigre and Urzola 2021).In 2021,the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights(IACHR)and the Office of
244、 the Special Rapporteur on Economic,Social,Cultural,and Environmental Rights,relying on IACtHRs advisory opinion,jointly adopted resolution No.3/21,entitled Climate Emergency:Scope of Inter-American human rights obligations(IACHR 2021a).The resolutions purpose is to systematize States human rights P
245、age 32 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3obligations in the context of the climate crisis to ensure that public policy decisions are made according to a rights-based approach.The resolution calls on States to comply with standards of climate action that particularly protect t
246、he rights of the most vulnerable and calls on States to“move towards a clean and just energy transition”.The resolution encourages companies to“adjust their behaviour and operations to the norms of the business and human rights regime”and“adopt plans to reduce GHG emissions”and make them public(IACH
247、R 2021a).This duty to adopt mitigation plans covers products and services,subsidiaries and suppliers.In the 2021 Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking to Redress Violations of the Rights of Children in Cit Soleil,Haiti(2021),several Haitian children petitioned IACHR to in
248、vestigate human rights violations stemming from waste disposal in their residential district(IACHR 2021b).9 The petition includes a discussion of climate changes intensification of harms to children through environmental displacement and exacerbation of waterborne diseases.Petitioners have alleged v
249、iolations of the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights on the rights of the 9 Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking to Redress Violations of the Rights of Children in Cit Soleil,Haiti,IACHR,4 February 2021(IACHR).10 Center for Food and Adequate Living Righ
250、ts et al.v.Tanzania and Uganda,East African Court of Justice,6 November 2020 (East African Court of Justice).child(article 19),the right to dignity(under the right to privacy,article 11),the right to live in a healthy environment(articles 4 and 26),and the right to judicial protection(article 25).IA
251、CHR is expected first to decide whether to assert jurisdiction.b.Cases before the East African Court of JusticeIn November 2020,four civil society organizations filed a suit against the Governments of the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda in the East African Court of Justice,seeking an injuncti
252、on to stop the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline.In Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights et al.v.Tanzania and Uganda(2020),plaintiffs have alleged that the Governments,without objection from the Secretary-General of the East African Community who is responsible for oversight
253、of the East African Community Treaty,have signed agreements to build the pipeline without proper environmental,social,human rights and climate impact assessments.The pending claim arises under Ugandan national law,and the East African Community Treaty and its protocols.10 Flickr/ELSA InternationalGl
254、obal Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3 Page 33c.Cases before European regional courtsSeveral cases have recently been filed under European regional courts.Cases under the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU)have been met with limited success and were dismissed on procedural
255、 grounds.Some pending claims at the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR)as at 31 December 2022 are discussed below.Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU has explicit and far-reaching review powers to interpret the law of the European Union and ensure it is applied in the same way across the m
256、ember States of the European Union,including the power to annul legislative acts(European Union 2007;European Union 2008).CJEU has so far had two climate cases,and both were dismissed due to lack of standing(Peter Sabo et al.v.European Parliament and Council of the European Union 2020).11 In Armando
257、 Ferro Carvalho and Others v.the European Parliament and the Council(2021)(the Peoples Climate Case),the applicants(families in the agricultural or tourism sectors in several European Union and non-European 11 The European Union Biomass case was highlighted in the 2020 Litigation Report.Peter Sabo e
258、t al.v.European Parliament and Council of the European Union,CJEU,Case No.T-141/19,Order ECLI:EU:T:2020:179,6 May 2020(European Union).12 Armando Ferro Carvalho and Others v.the European Parliament and the Council,CJEU,Case No.T-330/18,25 March 2021(European Union).13 Plaumann&Co.v.Commission of the
259、 European Economic Community,CJEU,Case No.25/62,Order ECLI:EU:C:1963:17,15 July 1963(European Union).Union countries)challenged European Union legislation adopted to enable it to meet its GHG emissions reduction targets,which,they argued,were insufficient to protect their lives,livelihoods and human
260、 rights from the impacts of climate change.12 The applicants in Carvalho argued that the violation of climate-related human rights is so unique that the strict standing test(that applicants need to show an individual concern particular to them or their group)(Plaumann&Co.v.Commission of the European
261、 Economic Community 1963;Hartmann and Willers 2021)13 should be altered(Winter 2020).However,CJEU rejected those arguments and dismissed the claim,concluding that since everyone is impacted by climate change in one unique way or another,the applicants could not demonstrate that they were individuall
262、y impacted by the European Unions climate policy(Tigre 2022a).CJEUs approach prevents individuals and environmental groups from challenging European Union law measures of general application,even when human rights are affected(Hartmann and Willers 2021).In Ville de Paris and Others v.European Commis
263、sion(2022),the City of Paris,the City of Brussels and the Pixabay/LVERPage 34 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3Municipality of Madrid brought an action against the European Commission,challenging a regulation establishing a new procedure for testing the real driving emission
264、s of certain motor vehicles.The cities argued that the regulation would prevent them from imposing restrictions on the circulation of passenger vehicles in relation to their air pollutant emissions.In 2018,the General Court partially upheld the action,prompting an appeal to CJEU.In 2022,CJEU handed
265、down its decision in that appeal,ruling in favour of the European Commission.14 The ruling clarifies requirements for standing under primary law of the European Union to challenge a Commission regulation.CJEU held that the General Court had erred when it stated that the cities were prevented from ex
266、ercising their powers to regulate the circulation of passenger vehicles to reduce pollution because the cities did not have a“direct concern”.European Court of Human Rights ECtHR has not yet ruled on the implications of climate change for the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in ECHR.However,12 clim
267、ate cases have recently been brought before ECtHR.In these,applicants argue that the Member States of the Council of Europe have violated some of the provisions of ECHR when considered in light of the Paris Agreement.All cases rely on the respondent States positive obligations concerning the right t
268、o life(article 2)and the right to respect for private and family life(article 8).The cases further make discrimination claims(article 14),alleging that the characteristics of their group or their personal circumstances are such that they will suffer particularly from the impacts of climate change.15
269、 Three cases(Duarte Agostinho,KlimaSeniorinnen,and Greenpeace Nordic)have already been communicated to State parties,meaning they were considered admissible at the preliminary stage.The court can still assess admissibility issues at a later stage.Four climate cases(Duarte Agostinho,14 Ville de Paris
270、 and Others v.European Commission,CJEU,Case No.C-177/19 P to C-177/19 P,13 January 2022(European Union).15 Ibid.16 Article 30 of the ECHR.17 Duarte Agostinho and Others v.Portugal and 32 Other States,ECtHR,Query No.39371/20,4 February 2021(ECtHR).18 De Conto v.Italy and 32 Other States,ECtHR,Complai
271、nt No.14620/21,3 March 2021(ECtHR).Uricchio v.Italy and 32 Other States,ECtHR,Complaint No.14615/21,3 March 2021(ECtHR).19 Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v.Federal Department of the Environment Transport,Energy and Communications(DETEC)and Others,Federal Supreme Court of Sw
272、itzerland,Case No.A-2992/2017,26 November 2020(Switzerland).KlimaSeniorinnen,Greenpeace Nordic,and Carme)have been considered“impact cases”and deemed a priority for hearing.In April and June 2022,respectively,ECtHR announced that the Grand Chamber would deal with KlimaSeniorinnen,Carme and Duarte Ag
273、ostinho.This option can be used when the seven judges decide that the case raises“a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto,or where the resolution of a question before the chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered
274、by the court”.16 This development underlines the high profile the court is giving those cases,which are following a fast track at ECtHR(Schmid 2022).In Duarte Agostinho and Others v.Portugal and 32 Other States(2021),six Portuguese youth filed a complaint against 33 countries alleging that the respo
275、ndents violated petitioners human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change,and the applicants requested member States of the European Union to take more ambitious domestic action.The applicants alleged that wildfires and increased temperatures affect their human rights and furth
276、er breach the prohibition of discrimination due to climate changes disproportionate impact on younger generations resulting from the prolonged effects they will suffer.17 The plaintiffs filed the case directly with ECtHR without first exhausting domestic remedies,based on the urgent needs to address
277、 the climate crisis.Two other similar complaints(De Conto v.Italy and 32 other States 2021;Uricchio v.Italy and 32 other States 2021)were filed against Italy,relying on the same legal grounds and also without first exhausting domestic remedies.18 Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protect
278、ion v.Federal Department of the Environment Transport,Energy and Communications(DETEC)and Others(KlimaSeniorinnen v.Switzerland)(2020)was brought by an association of senior women and four individual applicants against Switzerland in November 2020.19 Their application to ECtHR Global Climate Litigat
279、ion Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3 Page 35follows a domestic rejection of the applicants complaint on the basis that senior women are not uniquely affected by climate change,as detailed below.Mllner v.Austria(2021)was lodged against Austria by an individual applicant who suffers from Uhthoffs synd
280、rome,which affects people with multiple sclerosis who suffer when temperatures rise above 25C.The case was filed after an unsuccessful appeal to the Austrian Supreme Court.20 In Greenpeace Nordic and Others v.Norway(2021),several NGOs and six young climate activists filed a claim against the Norwegi
281、an Government,alleging that continued oil exploration by the Norwegian State breaches their fundamental human rights.21 The case follows a decision by the Norwegian Supreme Court,as explained below.In Carme v.France(2022),the Mayor of Grande-Synthe,whose application in Commune de Grande-Synthe v.Fra
282、nce(2021)was rejected,complained that the Council of State erred in rejecting his action.By claiming that he had no interest in the proceedings even though he was exposed to climate risk caused by insufficient government action,the mayor claimed the Council of State had violated his human rights.22
283、Five additional applications were filed in 2022.For example,in Soubeste and Others v.Austria and 11 Other States(2022),young European citizens alleged that their human rights have been adversely affected by climate change,which is driven,to a large extent,by the fossil energy industry.23 They furthe
284、r 20 Mllner v.Austria,ECtHR,25 March 2021(European Court of Human Rights).21 Greenpeace Nordic and Others v.Norway,ECtHR,Application No.34068/21,15 June 2021(ECtHR).22 Commune de Grande-Synthe v.France,Council of State of France,No.427301,1 July 2021(France).Carme v.France,ECtHR,Application No.7189/
285、21,7 June 2022(ECtHR).23 Soubeste and Others v.Austria and 11 Other States ECtHR,Case No.31925/22,2022(ECtHR).24 Plan B.Earth and Others v.United Kingdom,ECtHR,11 July 2022.25 Humane Being v.the United Kingdom,ECtHR,26 July 2022(European Court of Human Rights).contended that the 1994 Energy Charter
286、Treaty,ratified by all 12 respondent States,protects investors in that sector from regulatory changes and gives them access to exorbitant remedies through investor-State dispute settlement(ISDS)mechanisms,thereby inhibiting the respondent States from taking immediate measures against climate change
287、and making it impossible for them to attain the long term temperature goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement.In Plan B.Earth and Others v.United Kingdom(2022),applicants alleged that,in breach of its legal obligations arising under the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR,the United Kingdom is systematica
288、lly failing to take practical and effective measures to address the threat from man-made climate breakdown.24 In Humane Being v.the United Kingdom(2022),the applicant alleged that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under ECHR for failing to address the risks of the climate crisis,fut
289、ure pandemics and antibiotic resistance created by factory farming.25 This application posed novel climate arguments focusing on the danger of agricultural methane emissions and highlighting soy feed consumption in factory farming in the United Kingdom as a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon
290、basin.Page 36 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3B.Domestic climate rights casesCases brought in domestic forums have argued that climate obligations emerge from existing constitutional and fundamental rights secured under domestic law.These cases highlight the impact of clima
291、te change on human rights and challenge deficiencies of domestic regimes to address climate change.They have relied on:(i)Human rights(ii)The right to a healthy environment(iii)Rights of nature(iv)A combination of thesei.Human rightsSeveral cases brought in Europe rely on articles 2 and 8 of ECHR to
292、 inform domestic law.These cases often challenge whether a governments mitigation efforts are adequate to meet Paris Agreement commitments or whether particular government policies are consistent with human rights obligations.While several cases are still pending,these strategies have achieved some
293、success.Courts in Belgium and Germany have found that insufficient climate mitigation breaches human rights obligations under ECHR and under the national governments duty of care.Courts have found that governments have failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the harmful effects of climate c
294、hange or protect human rights to minimize climate risk.In April 2021,the German Federal Constitutional Court in Neubauer,et al.v.Germany(2021)struck down parts of Germanys Federal Climate Protection Act as incompatible with constitutional rights to life and health,among others,because the legislatio
295、n did not include sufficient provisions for emissions cuts beyond 2030.26 The court found the legislations mitigation targets inadequate to protect human 26 Neubauer,et al.v.Germany,Federal Constitutional Court of Germany,29 April 2021(Germany).27 Steinmetz,et al.v.Germany,Federal Constitutional Cou
296、rt of Germany,24 January 2022(Germany).28 See Federal Constitutional Court,Germany:http:/ 1 BvR 1565/21,1 BvR 1566/21,1 BvR 1669/21,1 BvR 1936/21,1 BvR 2574/21,1 BvR 2575/21,1 BvR 2054/21,1 BvR 2055/21,1 BvR 2056/21,1 BvR 2057/21,1 BvR 2058/21,Federal Constitutional Court of Germany,18 January 2022(
297、Germany).rights or to proportionally distribute the global carbon budget between current and future generations.The court concluded that Germanys climate law was effectively“offloading”emissions reduction to future generations in a violation of fundamental freedoms.The court grounded the decision in
298、 the States duty to protect fundamental rights and to minimize a foreseeable and sufficiently serious risk of harm posed by climate change.The court ordered the legislature to set clear provisions for reduction targets from 2031 onward by the end of 2022.A revised Climate Protection Act requiring a
299、reduction of 65 per cent in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030 was passed in 2021.A new challenge was brought before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2022,arguing that the targets continue to infringe fundamental rights as they still exceed Germanys remaining carbon budget and lack coordination betwee
300、n federal states(Steinmetz,et al.v.Germany 2022).27 The role of federal German states in establishing climate laws and mitigation targets was challenged in a series of 11 cases brought against the subnational governments in Germany in the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany(1 BvR 1565/21,1 BvR 1
301、566/21,1 BvR 1669/21,1 BvR 1936/21,1 BvR 2574/21,1 BvR 2575/21,1 BvR 2054/21,1 BvR 2055/21,1 BvR 2056/21,1 BvR 2057/21,1 BvR 2058/21 2022).28 These claims argued that codifying a legally binding reduction path is required at the subnational level,as states bear co-responsibility for protecting human
302、 rights,including safeguarding future generations,within their sphere of competence.In 2022,the court gave one joint decision for all 11 complaints,refusing to admit them for adjudication based on a lack of adequate prospects Federal Constitutional Court of Germany(2022b).29 The court found that the
303、 German federal legislature,not the subnational legislatures,is subject to implementing a carbon emissions budget.Additional claims have been brought before state courts in Germany seeking more ambitious climate action(Deutsche Umwelthilfe(DUH)v.Nordrhein-Westfalen(NRW)2020;Deutsche Umwelthilfe Glob
304、al Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3 Page 37(DUH)v.Bayern 2021;Marlene Lemme,et al.v.State of Bayern Subsidiary Claim 2021;Deutsche Umwelthilfe DUH v.Baden-Wrttemberg BaW 2021).30 In 2021,the Brussels Court of First Instance held in VZW Klimaatzaak v.Kingdom of Belgium&Others(2021)
305、that Belgium and three subnational governments had breached their duty of care under the Civil Code by failing to take necessary measures to prevent the harmful effects of climate change and comply with their mitigation targets.Further,the court found that by failing to take sufficient climate actio
306、n to protect the life and privacy of the plaintiffs,the defendants were in breach of their obligations under articles 2 and 8 of ECHR.However,the court declined to set more stringent emissions reduction targets on separation of powers grounds.In November 2021,Klimaatzaak appealed the judgment pertai
307、ning to the courts refusal to set specific binding targets related to the reduction of GHG emissions over time.31 In a case involving similar claims decided in 2022,Klimatick aloba R v.Czech Republic(2022),the Prague Municipal Court ordered the State to urgently take the necessary measures to addres
308、s climate change and devise a precise plan to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.32 Several claims filed in other jurisdictions also challenge the adequacy of national climate action under ECHR provisions that have been integrated into domestic law.In A Sud et al.v.Italy(2021),an environmental
309、 NGO and more than 200 individuals filed a suit against the Italian Government for failing to take actions necessary to meet the Paris Agreements temperature goal of well below 2C 30 Deutsche Umwelthilfe(DUH)v.Nordrhein-Westfalen(NRW),Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia,3 December
310、2020(Germany).Deutsche Umwelthilfe(DUH)v.Bayern,Higher Administrative Court of Bayern,24 June 2021(Germany).Marlene Lemme,et al.v.State of Bayern(Subsidiary Claim),Bayern Constitutional Court,30 June 2021(Germany).Deutsche Umwelthilfe(DUH)v.Baden-Wrttemberg(BaW),Higher Administrative Court of Justic
311、e Baden-Wrttemberg,8 November 2021(Germany).31 VZW Klimaatzaak v.Kingdom of Belgium&Others,Brussels Court of First Instance,17 November 2021(Belgium).32 Klimatick aloba R v.Czech Republic,Municipal Court in Prague,Judgment No.14A 101/2021,15 June 2022(Czech Republic).33 A Sud et al.v.Italy,Civil Cou
312、rt of Rome,5 June 2021(Italy).34 ClientEarth v.Poland(on Behalf of M.G.),Biaystok Court of Appeal,8 September 2021(Poland).ClientEarth v.Poland(on Behalf of M.O.),District Court,2021(Poland).ClientEarth v.Poland(on Behalf of M.S.),District Court,2021(Poland).ClientEarth v.Poland(on Behalf of P.R.),D
313、istrict Court,Poland,2021(Poland).ClientEarth v.Poland(on Behalf of P.N.),Pozna Regional Court,20 December 2021(Poland).35 Greenpeace et al.v.Austria,Constitutional Court of Austria,Decision No.G 144-145/2020-13,V 332/2020-13,30 September 2020(Austria).36 Greenpeace Netherlands v.State of the Nether
314、lands,The Hague District Court,Decision No.ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440,9 December 2020(Netherlands).with respect to pre-industrial levels while aiming to limit temperature increase to 1.5C.They have sought a court order to reduce emissions by 92 per cent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels,based on Italy
315、s“fair share”of global emissions under the Paris Agreement.33 Similarly,in 2021 ClientEarth in Poland brought five identical suits on behalf of private citizens against the Polish Government,alleging that the Government has permitted GHG emissions from its territory in excess of the nations“fair sha
316、re”under the Paris Agreement,in violation of its human rights obligations(ClientEarth v.Poland on Behalf of M.G.2021;ClientEarth v.Poland on Behalf of M.O.;ClientEarth v.Poland on Behalf of M.S.;ClientEarth v.Poland on Behalf of P.N.;ClientEarth v.Poland on Behalf of P.N.2021).34 Cases that have cha
317、llenged specific projects or policies based on human rights obligations under ECHR have had limited success to date.In Greenpeace et al.v.Austria(2020),the Austrian Constitutional Court dismissed a lawsuit requesting an invalidation of tax exemptions granted to air travel and not railways,finding th
318、at rail passengers do not have standing to sue over preferential tax treatment.35 Similarly,in Greenpeace Netherlands v.State of the Netherlands(2020),The Hague District Court found that the State does not have a legally enforceable obligation under ECHR to attach climate conditions to a COVID-19 ba
319、ilout package for the Dutch airline KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and deferred to the executive branchs discretion in responding to the pandemic.36 In Plan B Earth and Others v.The Secretary of State for Business,Energy,and Industrial Strategy(2019),the High Court of Justice in London refused permission
320、to proceed in a case alleging that the United Kingdoms continued support for high-emission transportation and fossil fuel industries within the Page 38 Global Climate Litigation Report:2023 Status Review|Part 3United Kingdom and its overseas territories violates rights protected by ECHR and the Unit
321、ed Kingdoms Human Rights Act.37 Rights-based litigation challenging national climate policies and policy-and project-level approvals has also emerged outside of Europe.In ENVironnement JEUnesse v.Procureur General du Canada(2022),an environmental non-profit organization alleged that Canadas GHG redu
322、ction targets were insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change impacts,that the plans to meet these targets were themselves inadequate,and that both of these breach Canadas obligations to protect the human rights of young people under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Qubec Char
323、ter of Rights and Freedoms.The federal Government submitted that the issues were not justiciable because they were inherently political and outside the competence of the court and because the allegation was government inaction.In December 2021,the Qubec Court of Appeal accepted the Governments argum
324、ents and denied a motion to certify a class action by the group of citizens.The appellants filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada,but this application was denied.38 In Laboratrio do Observatrio do Clima v.Minister of Environment and Brazil(2022),a network of civil so
325、ciety organizations filed a class action in the judicial section of Amazonas against the Brazilian Government.The plaintiffs requested that the National Climate Change Policy be updated to align Brazils GHG emissions with a 1.5OC global warming scenario.The plaintiffs asserted that climate change af
326、fects a wide range of human rights such as the rights to life,dignity,health,food and housing,as wellas the constitutionally recognized right to a healthy environment.39 37 Plan B Earth and Others v.The Secretary of State for Business,Energy,and Industrial Strategy,High Court of Justice of England a
327、nd Wales,Claim No.CO/16/2018,25 January 2019(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).38 ENVironnement JEUnesse v.Procureur General du Canada,Superior Court of Qubec,28 July 2022(Canada).39 Laboratrio do Observatrio do Clima v.Minister of Environment and Brazil,Seventh Federal Environme
328、ntal and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas,Ao Civil Pblica No.1027282-96.2021.4.01.3200,13 May 2022(Brazil).40 Tsama William and Others v.Ugandas Attorney General and Others,High Court of Uganda at Mbale,Miscellaneous Case No.024 of 2020,14 October 2020(Uganda).41 Decisions highlig
329、hted in previous reports that rely on the right to a healthy environment include:Leghari v.Federation of Pakistan,Lahore High Court,W.P.No.25501/201,Granted,25 January 2018(Pakistan).Future Generations v.Ministry of the Environment and Others,Colombia Superior Tribunals,Radicacin 11001 22 03 000 201
330、8 00319 00,5 April 2018(Colombia).In re Court on Its Own Motion v.State of Himachal Pradesh and others,National Green Tribunal,CWPIL No.15 of 2010,9 May 2019(India).The violation of human rights has also been used as the basis for legal arguments demanding adaptation measures from a government.In Ts
331、ama William and Others v.Ugandas Attorney General and Others(2020),the victims of recurring landslides in Bududa District,Uganda,filed a suit against the Government for failing to implement landslide adaptation measures.The applicants requested a declaration of violation of rights,damages,and compen
332、sation for the loss of life,threats to life,destruction of property,infringement of their other fundamental human rights and the costs of resettlement to safer areas.The case is pending as at 31 December 2022.40 ii.The right to a healthy environmentSeveral cases have made challenges to national clim
333、ate policy premised on the right to a healthy environment,as laid out in several domestic constitutions(Vilchez Moragues and Savaresi 2021).41 The majority of these cases are found in the Global South.In 2022,the Brazilian Supreme Court held in PSB et al.v.Brazil(on Climate Fund)(2022)that the Paris Agreement is a human rights treaty,which enjoys“supranational”status.This“supralegality”of human ri