Climate Justice Unlocked
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has just handed climate litigators in Latin America the most powerful tool they have ever had. Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 restructures the procedural architecture of climate litigation: inverting burdens of proof, authorising the presumption of causal links between state emissions and climate harm, and recognising satellite imagery as evidence that states must make accessible to victims. For organisations that have spent years fighting for communities on the front lines of the climate emergency, this is a transformative moment.
Continue reading >>
Procedural Rights in Climate Cases Before the ECtHR
This blog post takes the landmark ruling KlimaSeniorinnen as a starting point to examine the role of procedural rights in climate litigation before the European Court of Human Rights. Procedural rights, as we argue, can be understood in a twofold manner: on the one hand, as admissibility criteria structuring access to the Court, and on the other, as substantive guarantees flowing from the Convention itself. Read in this light, KlimaSeniorinnen – alongside Greenpeace Nordic – reveals key developments in the Court’s emerging climate jurisprudence across both dimensions.
Continue reading >>
From Awas Tingni to Advisory Opinion 32/25
In July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued Advisory Opinion 32/25 on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights: it recognized the right to a healthy climate as a standalone human right, declared a jus cogens norm prohibiting irreversible environmental harm, and affirmed the legal personhood of nature. These are not incremental developments. They are structural shifts in international environmental law, and they are the culmination of more than two decades of jurisprudential construction. This post traces that arc.
Continue reading >>
Climate Change and the Environment at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The relationship between climate change and human rights has occupied international legal scholarship for more than two decades. Yet for much of that period, the relationship remained largely aspirational — acknowledged in soft-law instruments and scholarly commentary, but only partially operationalized by binding international adjudication. Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or the Court) on May 29, 2025, marks a decisive shift in that landscape.
Continue reading >>
KlimaSeniorinnen and its Progeny
On 9 April 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered rulings in three climate-change cases, thus becoming the first international court to establish a right to be protected from the effects of climate change. The leading judgment was Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. Now, two years after the KlimaSeniorinnen precedent, we can perhaps begin to take stock of its implications and its progeny.
Continue reading >>
Inter-Judicial Dialogue on Climate Change and Human Rights
Climate change is not only an environmental or scientific issue – it is fundamentally a human rights challenge. Across jurisdictions and legal traditions, courts are increasingly being called upon to respond to their complex and far-reaching impacts on our human rights. This symposium brings together reflections from judges, practitioners, and scholars from the three regional human rights systems, based on presentations delivered at a conference held at Central European University in cooperation with the University of Vienna on 17 April 2026.
Continue reading >>
“Once the Lawyers Move In, You Know the Problem Is Serious”
Last July, the International Court of Justice delivered its unanimous advisory opinion on climate change – and it was unambiguous. Climate obligations are legal, substantive, and enforceable. Eighteen months after we first spoke with Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Tejas Rao and Markus Gehring from the University of Cambridge about the then-upcoming opinion, we asked them to take stock of what has actually changed: in courts, in multilateral diplomacy, and in the growing coalition of states willing to move ahead without waiting for the holdouts.
Continue reading >>
One Step Back and Two Steps Forward
In May, after years of litigation, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm rendered its final decision in Lliuya v. RWE AG – a landmark case in which a Peruvian farmer sought to hold the German energy giant RWE financially responsible for measures protecting his property from a potential glacier flood. Although the Court rejected the claim in the end, the judgment has been celebrated as a “success without victory” due to the potential precedent effect in terms of corporate liability. The true significance of the Lliuya v. RWE decision lies not in its dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, but in the court’s reasoning on extraterritoriality, causality, and preventive protection.
Continue reading >>
Erfolgreich gescheitert
Einer der spektakulärsten Klimahaftungsprozesse hat ein ebenso spektakuläres Ende gefunden: Das OLG Hamm hat die Klimaklage gegen RWE abgewiesen – und gleichzeitig klargestellt, dass Großemittenten grundsätzlich für Klimaschäden zivilrechtlich haftbar gemacht werden können. Das Urteil dürfte damit auf einen Fall von „success without victory“ hinauslaufen: Obwohl es kurzfristig eine Niederlage für den Kläger bedeutet, hält es für künftige Klimahaftungsklagen wertvolle Lektionen bereit.
Continue reading >>Netto, neutral, egal?
Seit Ende März berechtigt ein neuer Art. 143h GG den Bund dazu, Sondervermögen u.a. „für zusätzliche Investitionen zur Erreichung der Klimaneutralität bis zum Jahr 2045“ zu errichten. Wir wollen die „Klimaneutralität“ im neuen Art. 143h GG zum Anlass nehmen, um zu reflektieren, ob zentrale klimapolitische Konzepte vom Gesetzgeber und von der Rechtsprechung wissenschaftlich sinnvoll zur Anwendung gebracht wurden. Damit geht es uns letztlich um die Frage, welche Bedeutung dem Konzept der Klimaneutralität im Recht zugewiesen wird und werden sollte – also um das Verhältnis von Klimawissenschaft und Klimapolitik im Recht.
Continue reading >>What Does the European Court of Human Rights’ First Climate Change Decision Mean for Climate Policy?
On 9 April the European Court of Human Rights issued its first ever comprehensive decision in a climate litigation case. The ECtHR has set out clear directions for member states to follow to align their climate policies with human rights obligations. Domestic legislators across Europe must give these requirements serious consideration to ensure their climate laws not only meet these minimum standards but also effectively contribute to global climate goals. This is imperative for both environmental sustainability and the protection of fundamental human rights that climate change is affecting.
Continue reading >>
Tort Law and New Zealand’s Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In February 2024, the New Zealand Supreme Court overturned the previous strike outs in the case of Michael John Smith in tort against seven major New Zealand companies in the dairy, energy, steel, mining and infrastructure sectors. Smith asserts that the respondents are engaging in conduct that affects him and others, and has put them into legal connection with one another in ways that enable appropriate remedy. This is heartland common law territory. Even though the climate change problems we are now grappling with may be new ones, the centuries-old practices and traditions of the common law are a part of New Zealand’s constitutional heritage and structure. Litigation is a legitimate vehicle for members of the population to engage the law in the face of harm or threats to individuals’ rights and well-being.
Continue reading >>
Eine verpasste Chance
Das Urteil des Zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts erweist der politischen Handlungsfähigkeit und der Generationengerechtigkeit einen Bärendienst. In enger Auslegung der Haushaltsverfassung schränkt es die Möglichkeitsräume langfristig ausgerichteter Politik ein, ohne einen Kompromissweg vorzuzeichnen. Die Richterinnen und Richter haben die Chance verpasst, die haushaltsverfassungsrechtliche Dogmatik in Anknüpfung an den Klimabeschluss – wohlgemerkt des Ersten Senats – fortzuentwickeln und Leitplanken für das Verhältnis von Klimaschutz und Haushaltsverfassung zu formulieren. Das Urteil lässt sowohl Fingerspitzengefühl als auch Weitsicht vermissen, die ein so sensibles Thema wie die Generationengerechtigkeit im Gesamtgefüge verfassungsrechtlicher Normen insbesondere in von Umbrüchen geprägten Krisenzeiten erfordert.
Continue reading >>