Climate battle shifts from politics to courts as legal victories mount

Across the globe, the machinery of climate action is shifting gears. Where political negotiations have stalled and governments have begun rolling back their environmental commitments, courtrooms have become the new arena for forcing change. Over the past decade, legal activists have taken national governments to court with mounting success, compelling countries including the Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, South Korea, and Australia to adopt stronger climate policies. This week alone, Australia's highest court blocked the expansion of a coal mine in New South Wales on climate grounds—a decision that signals how thoroughly the legal landscape has transformed.

The momentum is real and measurable. Dennis van Berkel, who works with the Climate Litigation Network, which coordinates legal action against both states and corporations, told journalists that climate litigation is gaining force in courts worldwide. Margaret Young, a law professor at the University of Melbourne, confirmed the trend: climate change litigation is expanding both domestically and internationally. Meanwhile, on the political stage, the picture looks grimmer. Governments from Europe to the United States are scaling back climate ambitions. The upcoming COP meeting in November is not expected to produce major breakthroughs on reducing fossil fuels.

What has changed the legal calculus is a series of landmark rulings from international courts. Over the past two years, three major international tribunals—the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice—have issued advisory opinions affirming that countries have legal obligations to address climate change. A fourth opinion is expected from the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, a law professor at the University of Amsterdam who served as a legal expert in proceedings before all three courts, observed that substantial progress has been compressed into a remarkably short timeframe.

These advisory opinions, while not legally binding in the traditional sense, have proven far more powerful than their non-binding status might suggest. The legal principles they establish are now flowing back into national courts, where plaintiffs are wielding them as weapons against both governments and corporations. A Paris court cited the International Court of Justice opinion in June when it ordered TotalEnergies to include emissions from the use of its products in its corporate vigilance plan. In January, a Dutch court invoked the same opinion when it ordered the Netherlands to strengthen its climate plan in a case brought by residents of Bonaire, a Dutch Caribbean island. Both rulings are under appeal. Sophie Marjanac, legal director at the Redwater Insights think tank, noted that despite political skepticism about international law, judges in many countries continue to respect and apply it.

The legal net around corporations is tightening, though the precedent remains less established than for states. Jasper Teulings of the Climate Litigation Network described a "tightening net" closing around oil companies. Years of litigation have already led to permits for oil, gas, and coal projects being overturned in places like the UK. Norway's Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on licenses for North Sea projects. In 2027, the Dutch Supreme Court will decide a closely watched case brought by the environmental group Milieudefensie against Shell, potentially imposing a specific emissions-reduction target on the energy company.

The frontier of climate litigation now extends into territory that could reshape corporate accountability entirely: cases seeking to require major polluters to compensate people harmed or threatened by climate change, with liability proportional to the company's greenhouse gas emissions. German courts moved toward this principle last year in a case brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy company RWE. Though the courts rejected his compensation claim, they left the door open to holding major emitters liable for climate-related payments. Similar lawsuits are now pending across multiple countries: Philippine victims of Typhoon Odette have sued Shell in the UK; residents of Indonesia's Pari island are suing cement maker Holcim in Switzerland; and Pakistani farmers affected by the 2022 floods are pursuing cases against RWE and Heidelberg Materials in Germany.

The legal path forward is not without obstacles. Climate groups have lost lawsuits against oil companies in the United States. In New Zealand, the government changed the law to block a lawsuit brought by Maori activist Mike Smith against six domestic companies, though he has pledged to continue fighting. Still, the trajectory is clear: as political will falters, legal machinery accelerates. The question now is not whether courts will hold polluters accountable, but how far that accountability will extend.