The Climate Litigation Network (CLN) launched Laying the Foundations for Our Shared Future: How Ten Years of Climate Cases Built a Legal Architecture for Climate Protection (November 2025).
Human Level’s Take:
- Since 2015, nearly 3,000 climate lawsuits have been launched, 151 of which are framework cases intended to make broader systems change. Governments have received the most framework cases,128, while corporations have received 23.
- Why is climate litigation increasing? It is a response to the world’s collective political failure to address climate change. It’s been led mainly by those hit hardest, including youth, older people and Indigenous Peoples.
- According to the Climate Litigation Network, over the past decade we’ve seen the emergence of a global legal framework for climate protection, upheld by top courts the world over. Courts increasingly recognise that governments are legally bound to prevent dangerous warming, by setting ambitious emissions reduction plans and fulfilling them quickly.
- Moving ahead, three expectations are likely to develop further: that companies are legally required to cut emissions, that governments must halt new fossil fuel projects, and that high-emitting companies can be held liable for climate harm. These legal developments are intensifying pressure for faster emissions cuts and compensation for affected communities.
- They are also likely to up the ante on companies’ transition plans, inviting closer scrutiny and setting higher expectations. For companies, the best path forward is to continue developing and implementing strong climate transition plans, backed by science, while considering impacts on the ecosystems and people who will be most impacted by climate change. Companies who commit the resources and time to get their transition plans right set themselves up for better climate resilience and reduced scrutiny in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Some key takeaways:
- Why climate litigation is a growing movement: The report states that the increase in climate litigation is a direct response to the world’s collective political failure to address climate change. The authors observe that, to date, climate litigation has been driven largely by the people most affected by climate change, like young people, older peoples and Indigenous Peoples, supported by civil society. The CLN’s report analyses the trajectory and effects of framework climate litigation — i.e., cases intended to target a government or company’s broad climate mitigation ambition, in order to effect systemic change — over the last ten years since the Urgenda v Netherlands case. Urgenda marked the first time anywhere that a court ordered a government to take stronger climate action. Since 2015, almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed, with 151 of these framework cases. Of these, 128 were filed against governments and 23 against corporations.
- Key achievements of climate litigation: Over the last ten years, the authors have observed that we now have a global legal framework and basis for climate protection, which is affirmed by top international courts and tribunals. There are four main building blocks that courts have used to set the obligations of governments to reduce emissions: (1) prevent dangerous climate change; (2) contribute their fair share to limiting warming to 1.5°C, based on scientific evidence; (3) protect future generations through fair, achievable climate plans; and (4) back their commitments with concrete, effective measures. In parallel, there are three areas where legal architecture continues to develop. First, that companies have a legal duty to cut their emissions, as shown by Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands, which was the first time that a court imposed a specific emissions reduction obligation on a private company. Second, that governments’ obligation to protect people from climate change entails limiting their support for fossil fuel production. The report concludes that, as science and legal standards converge, climate litigation is moving toward compelling governments to reject new fossil fuel projects altogether. The authors expect future cases to target government approvals or support for new fossil-fuel production. Third, that high-emitting companies can be held accountable for climate damages, which Lliuya v RWE in Germany has laid the groundwork for. The authors anticipate that these types of cases will add pressure to governments and companies for faster emissions cuts and compensation for the communities most affected by climate change.
- Impacts beyond the courtroom: The authors point out that climate litigation has had impacts that go beyond courtroom walls. For example, Brazil, Germany and the Netherlands increased emissions targets following key legislation, and Germany, Ireland and South Korea (in progress) developed more detailed net-zero plans and laws on emissions reduction targets. In Pakistan, the Lahore High Court strengthened judicial oversight of government climate action by ordering the creation of a Climate Change Commission, requiring government agencies to implement climate policies. In Australia and the UK, as well as other countries, new fossil fuel projects were subjected to additional scrutiny, requiring them to be reassessed and in some cases rejected. In Hawaii, the Department of Transportation committed to decarbonise the state’s transportation system by 2045, with court oversight. And, in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway, climate cases have helped to increase visibility and momentum of climate movements and shift how investors and regulators consider climate risk. As to what comes next, the CLN emphasises that enforcement of the legal structure is the key challenge. They call for increased litigation against high-emitting companies and, as loss and damage from rising temperatures increase, anticipate that more cases will arise against governments and the private sector to pay the costs.
