Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the impact of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) on climate change litigation (CCL) in the US. It finds that jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP protections are more likely to attract corporate CCL, suggesting that legal protections for free speech facilitate the development of climate law.

The document examines the legal tension between the restrictive Atlantic Forest Law (LMA) and the more flexible Forest Code (Lei nº 12.651/2012) regarding 'consolidated rural areas'. It focuses on a specific case in Paraná where the TRF-4 decided on February 11, 2026, to extinguish a lawsuit without judging the merits, thereby maintaining the current application of the Forest Code for environmental regularization. The briefing highlights that while this provides short-term stability for the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), the fundamental legal controversy over which law prevails remains unresolved.

The document argues that the European Commission is increasingly abandoning impact assessments (IAs) and public consultations under the guise of 'political urgency', which ClientEarth claims increases legal risks and the likelihood of unintended environmental and social consequences. It recommends strictly limiting IA exemptions, increasing transparency by publishing assessments earlier in the legislative process, and ensuring balanced stakeholder representation to prevent corporate capture. Additionally, it criticizes the use of 'Omnibus' proposals for simplification, suggesting instead that the Commission focus on removing truly duplicative requirements and tying EU funding to law compliance.

ClientEarth argues that the proposed Ocean Act must move from 'paper commitments to real practice' by becoming a legally binding Regulation rather than a Directive. The organization advocates for the achievement of 'Good Environmental Status' (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) as the overarching objective, which would prioritize environmental thresholds over socio-economic goals. Key recommendations include establishing a legally binding target for 30% of EU seas as effectively managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2030, banning bottom trawling in MPAs, and phasing out harmful fisheries subsidies. ClientEarth also proposes 'Ocean Mainstreaming' to integrate marine protection across all EU sectoral policies and calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms, including access to justice and infringement proceedings, to close the existing implementation gap.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks. It emphasizes that States have binding obligations to limit warming to 1.5°C, act with 'stringent' due diligence based on the best available science (IPCC), and protect human rights. The notes detail how these findings can be used to challenge inadequate NDCs, hold corporations accountable for emissions, and oppose the dismantling of environmental protections.

The document analyzes the ICJ's advisory opinion to argue that States must prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source over speculative technologies like geoengineering and carbon offsets. It outlines how the ICJ's standards of 'stringent due diligence' and the 'precautionary principle' can be used in litigation to hold States and corporations accountable for ineffective climate strategies that delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document analyzes the implications of the ICJ's advisory opinion on States' obligations to prevent environmental harm, specifically focusing on the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the regulation of private finance. It argues that States may commit internationally wrongful acts by continuing to fund fossil fuel production or failing to regulate private financiers. Additionally, it outlines binding obligations for developed States to provide financial assistance to developing countries for climate adaptation and mitigation under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The briefing concludes by categorizing various types of climate litigation—including cases against public agencies, central banks, and private financial institutions—where these legal findings are applicable.

The document translates the ICJ's advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on the 'stringent due diligence' States must exercise to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that States may be in breach of international obligations if they fail to prevent significant climate harm through the production, licensing, or subsidizing of fossil fuels. The brief also connects these findings to specific case categories, including licensing, duty to regulate, corporate frameworks, accountability for loss and damage, and greenwashing, emphasizing the 1.5°C temperature goal as a legal standard.

The document analyzes how the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion (AO) establishes a 'stringent due diligence' standard for States to prevent significant harm to the climate system. It argues that regulatory rollbacks, such as easing emission standards or removing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements, may constitute internationally wrongful acts. The note provides specific legal excerpts from the AO and applies them to various categories of litigation, including challenges to diluted mitigation standards, weakened land-use protections, and procedural rollbacks. A detailed annex examines recent regulatory shifts in India—including thermal power emission norms, forest governance changes under the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023, and EIA exemptions—as examples of conduct that may breach the ICJ's established standards.

The document distills key findings from the ICJ's July 2025 advisory opinion, establishing the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a binding norm of international law and a precondition for other human rights. It outlines State obligations to protect the climate system, the material scope of wrongful acts—including omissions related to fossil fuel subsidies and licenses—and the legal consequences of breaches, such as full reparation. The briefing also categorizes types of climate litigation, such as cases treating the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right or linking it to the rights of nature, to illustrate how the ICJ's reasoning can be applied in domestic and international courts.

The document provides a structured analysis of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion (AO) delivered on 23 July 2025, specifically focusing on how its findings can be applied to climate adaptation litigation. It details binding obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, the intersection of adaptation with human rights law, and the ICJ's rejection of arguments that the cumulative nature of climate change exempts individual States from responsibility. The guide also categorizes types of litigation—including human rights-based cases, national planning challenges, corporate accountability, and infrastructure projects—where these legal excerpts are most applicable.

The document analyzes the legal implications of the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion for 'government framework cases,' which target emissions reduction targets and regulatory frameworks. It details how the ICJ clarified that 1.5°C is the primary temperature goal of the Paris Agreement and established a 'stringent' due diligence standard for States in preparing and implementing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The guide highlights that NDCs must reflect a State's 'highest possible ambition' and be capable of making an adequate contribution to the 1.5°C goal. It also emphasizes the application of customary international law regarding the duty to prevent significant transboundary harm and the duty to cooperate, regardless of treaty membership. Furthermore, the document connects climate action to human rights obligations and intergenerational equity, providing a legal basis for courts to order remedies such as the adoption of consistent NDCs or full reparation.

The ICJ AO Litigation Notes Digest synthesizes the International Court of Justice's 2025 advisory opinion, establishing that States have stringent due diligence obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system. It clarifies that the 1.5°C goal is the primary temperature target under the Paris Agreement and that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a precondition for other human rights. The digest details the legal consequences of breaches, including obligations of cessation and reparation, and emphasizes that climate obligations are erga omnes, meaning all States have a legal interest in their protection.

The document analyzes the current state of negotiations for a global plastics treaty after INC-5.3, focusing on the 'start-and-strengthen' model. It argues that for such a model to succeed, a treaty must include clear global objectives, enforceable obligations, effectiveness evaluations, and a procedural path for normative evolution. The brief compares three Chair's drafts and various member state proposals, concluding that many current drafts risk becoming 'bottom-up' models based on voluntary national actions, which could lead to regulatory fragmentation and insufficient collective action to end plastic pollution.

The document analyzes how the 2026 Omnibus directive weakened the CSDDD by significantly reducing the number of companies in scope, removing mandatory climate transition plans, and fragmenting the civil liability regime. It argues that these changes undermine the directive's original intent to foster responsible corporate behavior and increase legal uncertainty for both companies and victims of human rights and environmental abuses.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks.

The document examines the application of the Polluter-Pays Principle (PPP) to the PFAS pollution crisis, noting that clean-up costs in Europe could exceed €100 billion per year. It argues that the PPP must be expanded to cover legacy, present, and future pollution, regardless of whether it was legal at the time, and should target both producers and users. The authors recommend combining taxes, fees, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes with strict phase-out measures and criminal penalties to ensure that the financial burden of direct and indirect societal costs is shifted from citizens to polluters.

The document examines the systemic failure to apply the Polluter-Pays Principle (PPP) to PFAS pollution, noting that clean-up costs in Europe could exceed €100 billion annually. It proposes a framework where the PPP covers legacy, present, and future pollution—regardless of legality—and targets both producers and users. The authors advocate for a combination of taxes, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, and risk-pooling funds to prevent public funds from bearing the cost of remediation, while emphasizing that the PPP must be paired with a total phase-out of PFAS.

The report argues that federal agencies are bypassing legal responsibilities for reasoned decisionmaking to advance a deregulatory agenda. It details ten specific analytical requirements for proper regulatory repeals, including the necessity of considering both costs and benefits, accounting for indirect and non-monetized effects, and avoiding the use of outdated data or discredited models.

The Institute for Policy Integrity challenges the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) proposal to remove the "blanket rule," which applies endangered species prohibitions to threatened species by default. The Institute asserts that the FWS's rationale is flawed because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals previously found the rule consistent with the statute and because recent Supreme Court decisions do not mandate the withdrawal of regulations upheld by prior judicial decisions.