10 July 2025
A Differentiated Path Forward
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the “Climate Emergency and Human Rights” represents a transformative moment in international legal doctrine on climate-induced displacement and shows why the IACtHR’s conclusions constitute not merely an incremental development, but a fundamental reorientation of the human rights law approach to one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Continue reading >>
0 
09 July 2025
A Blueprint for Rights-Based Climate Action
On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion No. 32—the most important and progressive document yet released by an international court on the climate crisis. The IACtHR’s findings are as comprehensive as they are groundbreaking, spanning areas from procedural requirements for mitigation measures to the protection of environmental defenders. This post launches a blog symposium on the advisory opinion and discusses ten key takeaways, chosen to illustrate the opinion’s legal and practical significance. Continue reading >>
0
12 June 2025
Kein Problem des Zivilrechts
139 Seiten Gerichtsurteil, ein peruanischer David gegen einen Goliath der deutschen Energiewirtschaft und eine Gletscherkatastrophe. Das hätte zur juristischen Großerzählung an einer schwierigen Schnittstelle zwischen Privat- und Verwaltungsrecht getaugt. Man hätte das Eigentumsrecht in einer globalisierten Welt vermessen und hinterfragen können, ob das BGB so einem Fall gerecht werden kann. Aber das Oberlandesgericht Hamm will in seinem Klimaurteil vom 28. Mai 2025 in die Beweiswürdigung und löst den Fall, als spiele er in Wanne-Eickel: Gutachten, kein Beweis für die Gefahr, Klage abgewiesen. Continue reading >>01 June 2025
Success Without Victory
One of the most striking climate cases has come to a striking end. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm dismissed the lawsuit against RWE on minor factual grounds – yet at the same time confirmed that major emitters can, in principle, be held liable under German private law for climate-related harms. The ruling may ultimately represent a success without victory: A short-term loss for the plaintiff, but one that provides important insights and strategic lessons for future climate liability cases. Continue reading >>
0
08 April 2025
The Human Right to a Healthy Environment from an EU Charter Perspective
Over the last five years, there has been a noticeable turn towards human rights in climate litigation. In the same period, European climate legislation has evolved into a considerable legal framework. This warrants the question of whether there has been a similar turn to human rights before the Court of Justice of the EU – especially as Article 37 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights consecrates the “principle” of environmental protection. Continue reading >>
0
15 November 2024
Towards a Bundle of Duties
This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change. Continue reading >>
0
12 November 2024
Lessons of a Landmark Lost
On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v Milieudefensie set aside the preceding 2021 judgment which held Shell responsible for its contribution to climate change. The 2021 judgment was widely heralded (though also critiqued) as groundbreaking and a precedent that could be followed elsewhere. While the Appeal judgment is unlikely to receive similar praise from climate activists, it contains important lessons regarding the responsibility of multinational companies for their contributions to climate change. Continue reading >>29 October 2024
A Leap Forward for Biodiversity Litigation
On 23 October, 2024, BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) and several individuals filed a constitutional complaint mirroring the Neubauer case, but directed at the biodiversity crisis. The claimants seek a declaration from the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) that the lack of a coherent scheme for the protection of biodiversity infringes fundamental rights and seek an order from the court for the legislature to take the necessary measures to adopt an appropriate, legally binding protection scheme within a clear timeline. This case presents a significant development in the field of strategic biodiversity litigation as the first systemic government framework case. It can be seen as the Urgenda of biodiversity litigation. Continue reading >>
0
16 October 2024
Admissibility Revisited
In an effort to force the European Union to adopt more ambitious climate targets, two environmental NGOs initiated a proceeding before the EU General Court, invoking the rarely used mechanism of “internal review” under the EU’s Aarhus Regulation. The reason for this unusual approach lies within a reoccurring issue of climate litigation: overcoming restrictive admissibility requirements. This new approach follows a path that had not yet been considered by legal scholarship or practice. While the line of argument is rather innovative, it goes beyond the boundaries of the Aarhus Regulation and is therefore likely to fail. Continue reading >>27 June 2024
A Global South Perspective on Loss and Damage Litigation
In June 2024, delegates undertook two-week-long negotiations at the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Conference. These meetings concerned the modalities of the newly instituted Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund and the provision of financial assistance to developing countries. In this piece, we reflect on the future interactions between the L&D Fund and litigations regarding L&D. We argue that these two phenomena must be seen as having a synergistic relation, effectively benefitting the Global South. Continue reading >>
0