Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) responds to a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that allows the State Attorney General to investigate ExxonMobil regarding the concealment of fossil fuels' role in climate change.

This document is a cover letter accompanying a Joint Summary of Amicus Curiae Briefs submitted to the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. The submission supports petitioners Greenpeace Southeast Asia et al. in a national inquiry into the impact of climate change on the human rights of the Filipino people, specifically focusing on the responsibility of 'Carbon Majors' companies for human rights violations.

A statement by CIEL President & CEO Carroll Muffett criticizing Exxon's legal strategy of filing discovery requests and lawsuits against public officials, attorneys, and organizations investigating the company's role in the climate crisis.

A statement by CIEL President Carroll Muffett regarding the announcement of a Climate Action Coalition by US Attorneys General and their investigations into fossil fuel companies, specifically Exxon, for climate deception and fraud.

This research paper explores the potential for bringing human rights complaints against the United States due to the adverse impacts of global warming, particularly focusing on the threats to the fundamental rights of indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic.

This executive summary from the Center for International Environmental Law argues that major fossil fuel companies are legally and ethically responsible for the climate crisis. It asserts that these companies were aware of the risks of their products as early as the 1950s but chose to protect their own assets while funding extensive disinformation campaigns to undermine climate science and stymie regulation.

An open letter from 252 legal experts to the participants of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, asserting that states have binding international legal obligations to phase out fossil fuels to prevent significant climate harm.

This open letter, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), is addressed to the participants of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. It features a collection of statements from legal experts, academics, and policy advisors who argue that phasing out fossil fuels is a binding legal obligation under international law, rather than a matter of political discretion. The document emphasizes that current approvals for new fossil fuel projects and the continued use of subsidies violate international legal duties to prevent climate harm and protect human rights.

An open letter signed by 252 legal experts, academics, and professionals addressed to the participants of the First Conference for the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. The document asserts that states have binding international legal obligations to phase out fossil fuels to prevent significant climate damage and protect human rights.

This briefing, produced by a coalition of climate litigation practitioners, provides structured 'Litigation Notes' to help lawyers apply the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, advisory opinion (AO) on States' climate obligations. Specifically, this note focuses on the ICJ's conclusion that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a binding norm of international law and a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should apply the full spectrum of international law—including human rights, the law of the sea, and customary law—to determine State obligations regarding climate change. It counters arguments from 'big polluters' who claim that the UN climate regime (UNFCCC and Paris Agreement) is the sole relevant legal framework and that its obligations are merely procedural. The document asserts that States have longstanding duties to prevent transboundary environmental harm and protect human rights, which necessitates a phase-out of fossil fuels and the provision of reparations for climate-related injuries.

This fact sheet summarizes the legal summons issued on 5 April 2019 by Milieudefensie and other claimants against Shell. The claimants argue that Shell's business model violates its legal duty of care and endangers human rights by contributing to dangerous climate change, demanding that the company align its emissions reductions with the IPCC's 1.5°C pathway.

A fact sheet by Natural Justice detailing a legal challenge brought by the Aukotowa Primary Fishing Cooperative, The Green Connection, and Natural Justice against the South African government's decision to grant TotalEnergies EP South Africa S.A.S environmental authorisation for ultra-deep water exploration in the Deep Water Orange Basin (DWOB).

This case study describes a legal action brought by Global Legal Action on Climate Change (GLACC) against various Philippine government departments to enforce flood control laws in response to intensifying climate change.

This case study describes the legal action brought by Ashgar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, against the Government of Pakistan for failing to implement national climate change policies. The Lahore High Court ruled in 2015 that this failure violated citizens' fundamental rights, leading to the creation of a Climate Change Commission and a mandate for government ministries to appoint climate change point-persons.

This fact sheet by Natural Justice critiques the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill, arguing that its goal to accelerate petroleum exploitation in South Africa contradicts the country's climate commitments, threatens biodiversity, and lacks sufficient public consultation.

This briefing paper by Trend Asia criticizes the Indonesian government's continued reliance on coal-fired power plants (PLTU) despite escalating climate disasters and negative socio-economic impacts. It details legal challenges brought by civil society organizations and affected citizens against the National Electricity General Plan (RUKN) 2025-2060 and the Electricity Supply Business Plan (RUPTL) 2025-2034, arguing that these documents perpetuate fossil fuel dependency and ignore public health and environmental risks.