Başak Çalı , Head of Research and Professor of International Law at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights , Faculty of Law , asks whether judicial climate rulings can make a real difference to the climate crisis.
Across the globe, judges are stepping into the fight against climate change. From Seoul to Strasbourg, courts have delivered landmark judgments about their governments' failures to tackle the crisis. But can judicial climate rulings really make a difference when scientists warn us that clear signs of human-induced climate change reached new heights in 2024?
Our new study at Oxford's Bonavero Institute of Human Rights explores how courts are crafting human rights-based climate remedies - and why implementation so often falters. Most importantly, we show which considerations can help overcome implementation barriers and turn paper victories into effective climate action.
Professor Başak ÇalıCourts as catalysts
We reviewed 15 climate decisions globally and found that courts have become important catalysts for climate governance in four key ways.
First, courts are making sure that existing national climate laws and policies are implemented in practice.
In Pakistan, a lawyer named Asghar Leghari, who came from a farming family, took his government to court over climate policy failures - and won.
Describing climate change as a 'defining issue of our time,' the Lahore High Court ordered the implementation of Pakistan's National Climate Change Policy. Leghari successfully argued that lack of progress against targets created a negative impact on the country and the rights of its people.
Second, courts are demanding governments introduce new climate legislation and policy.
In one high-profile case, the South Korean Constitutional Court required the government to develop measurable climate targets beyond 2030 , ending a four-year legal battle. The court found that existing legal frameworks lacked the specificity to guarantee citizens' constitutional rights.
Third, courts are requiring independent oversight mechanisms to ensure continuous monitoring of progress.
In a case brought by 25 children and young people, the Colombian Supreme Court ordered the creation of 'intergenerational guardianship councils' - including young people - to oversee deforestation reduction measures in the Amazon region.
Fourth, courts have underlined that the communities and individuals most affected by climate change should have access to justice.
In a landmark decision following a complaint brought by an association formed of hundreds of older Swiss women, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that access to justice is an essential component of climate protection .
Challenges to implementation
Like many other human rights judgments, human rights-based climate rulings routinely face implementation challenges.
One frequent barrier is political resistance. This can be due to ideological opposition to climate action or a mismatch between judicial timelines and political incentives. In democracies, elected officials operate within short-term electoral horizons, whereas climate remedies typically mandate long-term action spanning decades.
What we as academics call the 'polycentricity' of climate change - the fact it cuts across sectors and touches on all levels of government - also creates difficulties.
Climate action typically involves complex coordination across multiple government ministries and agencies with separate mandates, budgets and priorities, and varying degrees of autonomy.
Climate action also resists one-off, single-sector solutions. This reality helps explain why ambitious judicial remedies often yield underwhelming results on the ground.
Finally, climate remedies originating from courts invariably have economic consequences for who pays and who benefits. This in turn generates societal tensions that complicate implementation.
Crafting 'smart' remedies
To solve these challenges, we propose four principles for crafting smart climate remedies based on our examination of best practices across countries and cases.
1. Balance specificity and adaptability
The most effective climate remedies set clear outcomes but allow flexibility in how they're achieved. Abstract declarations rarely attract political will or action, while overly detailed orders risk overreach and unintended consequences.
2. Incorporate scientific authority while maintaining adaptability
Remedies should rest on the best available science - especially from authoritative bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - yet remain open to adjustment as knowledge evolves. Oversight mechanisms must adapt as the evidence base grows.
3. Align remedies with institutional capacity
Judicial orders work best when they fit the administrative, technical and financial capacity of the institutions tasked with carrying them out. Orders that exceed capacity invite failure and can undermine courts' credibility.
4. Design for accountability and transparency
Effective remedies incorporate regular reporting requirements, measurable compliance indicators, and opportunities for civil society and communities to take part. Transparency keeps pressure on governments and gives courts the data to ensure follow-through.
Human rights-based climate litigation is here to stay
In the years and decades to come, courts will continue to hear cases arguing whether states have done enough to mitigate climate change and protect the most vulnerable communities from climate-related harms.
Judges can't solve the climate crisis alone - winning in court is only half the battle. But if their rulings are smart and can garner political and societal support, they can help turn paper victories into real progress.
