The Rise of Climate Litigation: Courts, Governments, and the Fight for Accountability

Introduction: The Central Question

In 2015, a Pakistani farmer and a lawyer from Rahim Yar Khan asked a question in a Pakistani court that, to some extent shook the courtrooms around the world: What would you do if your country had a climate policy beautifully written on paper, but nothing still happened? The lawyer and farmer was Asghar Leghari, and his case and question became the cornerstone of climate litigation, not only in Pakistan but all around the world. Today, this question stays at the heart of environmental law and one of the most consequential legal debates of this century: Can courts force governments to act on climate change?

Climate change is widely regarded as a global issue, a global emergency. The international community has come together to solve this issue through instruments such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. But the gap between the policy and the actual execution of that policy still exists because of many reasons, such as short-term economic trade-offs, political inertia, and the super wicked nature of the problem.

Why This Matters To Pakistan?

Many countries in today’s world are facing climate injustice, and Pakistan is one of them. Despite emitting less than 1% of global greenhouse gases, Pakistan has been the most affected country because of the recent consequences of climate change in 2022, according to the Climate Risk Index 2025. Those catastrophic and devastating floods claimed the lives of more than 1,700 people, displaced 33 million people, and caused an economic loss of more than $30 billion. This proves that Pakistan is paying for a crisis that it did not even create. This climate paradox of suffering more from climate change even after minimal contribution places Pakistan at the forefront of the moral and legal debate. The global importance of Pakistan has also been reflected in the broader debate on climate litigation. As per the statistics, 2,666 cases related to climate change litigation globally have been identified, out of which around 70 percent were filed after 2015, the same year the Paris Agreement was made. Up until the beginning of 2026, there have been over 3,400 cases related to climate change litigation filed in 55 countries and 24 international tribunals. Pakistan is among the countries included in this expanding list.

What Is Climate Litigation?

Climate litigation refers to the issues brought before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies on issues of climate change science, law, or policy. It is, as its core, demanding the courts to intervene in the matter and solve it by forcing the governments and cooperations for their inadequate behavior, inaction, negligence, and contribution in climate change. Climate litigation has been widely understood as the attempt to fill the regulatory gap between the existence of policy and its actual execution. Climate litigation covers all aspects of climate governance, from mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, to energy transition. Scholars have distinguished several typologies of climate litigation based on type of action, the focus of the claim, and regulatory effect.

Government framework cases challenge the ambition or implementation of a government’s overall climate policy. Corporate framework cases aim at changing company-level governance. Failure to adapt cases and climate-washing cases complete the taxonomy. Every of these categories has grown very much in the last decade, reflecting both the diversification of legal strategy and the expanding awareness of climate related risks.

Legal Foundation: How Courts Justify Their Intervention

Courts have found ways to make climate intervention happen through four areas of law that overlap. The law that protects rights has become very important, with courts using the right to life and the right to private life. These are Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is used to say that governments are harming people’s lives and homes by not doing anything about climate change, as seen in the Urgenda case and the case in Bonaire. The idea that governments have a duty to take care of their citizens and the principle of negligence have also been used, where governments are expected to take care of their citizens like a professional would take care of a client. This was part of the Urgenda case and the Asghar Leghari case, and it is being used more and more in lawsuits like Pabai Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia.

Then there are the rules set out in constitutions, which provide another basis for climate intervention. For example, Pakistan’s constitution has Article 9A, which was added in 2024; Germany’s court decision in the Neubauer case protected the rights of generations, and the Held v Montana case in the United States all show how the rules in a country’s constitution—whether they are specifically about the environment or about broader human rights—can be used to make governments do something about climate change. Finally, international law gives us the standards to measure countries against. The Paris Agreement’s goal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is used in every major court case. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said in May 2024 that greenhouse gas emissions are a form of pollution that affects the ocean, and the International Court of Justice said in July 2025 that countries have to follow the rules on climate change because of international law, treaties, and human rights law.

Global Case Studies

On an international level, the path of government-mandated climate lawsuits should be viewed through the lens of the following three cases. The Urgenda Foundation case against the Netherlands in 2019 is an example. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands told the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Urgenda Foundation case. They had to decrease these emissions by at least 25 percent compared to the levels in 1990 until the year 2020 in the Urgenda Foundation case. The government of the Netherlands had to make changes because of the Urgenda Foundation case. Another case, Juliana v. United States, was initiated in 2015 by 21 children as a complaint concerning the violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by the fossil fuel policies of the federal government, but it was eventually dismissed due to lack of standing in 2021. Yet, it gave birth to the youth-standing doctrine used for similar lawsuits in other countries. Finally, KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2024), in which the European Court of Human Rights found against Switzerland for not meeting its climate obligations and for violating Article 8 of the ECHR for the first time in its history.

Pakistan’s Spotlight

Whereas, Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015) is a landmark climate case in the legal history of Pakistan. As a lawyer-farmer, whose 500 acres of agriculture had become a victim of crop failure, Asghar Leghari filed a case in the Lahore High Court against the government for its failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy 2012 and the Framework for Implementation 2014–2030, thus violating his constitutional rights to life and respect for his dignity according to Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court supported him, stating that the failure to act on the part of the government infringed upon the basic rights of citizens, especially vulnerable groups of the population, and reacted with great creativity of structure by ordering twenty ministries to appoint climate focal points and by creating a Climate Change Commission.

Pakistan’s Evolution From Article 9 To Article 9a

The constitution in Pakistan with regard to climate and environmental issues has progressed a lot. It took more than half a century since there was no mention of the environment under the 1973 Constitution. Articles 9 and 14 were extended, that is, the right to life and dignity for such purposes, which is evident from the case WAPDA v. Shehla Zia. But the 26^th Constitutional Amendment in October 2024 brought about fundamental changes by inserting the right to a healthy environment under Article 9A. Thus, Pakistan joined the group of jurisdictions such as India, wherein the Supreme Court case of M.K. Ranjitsinh derived climate rights from the Constitution. Article 9A has become a subject of judicial consideration as seen in the case of Mehar Badshah v. Government of KPK (PLD 2025 SC 36), which stated that any illegal deforestation constitutes a violation of Articles 9 and 9A. The Peshawar High Court in May 2025 issued an order banning illegal glacier cutting across Hazara and Malakand, relying on Article 9A and environmental laws. Finally, 39 to 43 Pakistani farmers suffering from the 2022 floods sued German companies in a cross-border climate suit in Germany, namely RWE and Heidelberg Materials.

Enforcement Mechanisms: How Courts Can Make Their Orders Stick

The effect of a court decision on the world depends on what happens after the decision is made. There are three ways that climate lawsuits have led to change. The first way is when a court orders someone to do something like in the Urgenda case, where they had to reduce emissions in a way and the court checked to make sure they did it. The second way is when a court sets up a group to watch and make sure the changes are made, like in the Leghari case, where they kept checking to make sure everything was done right even after the court case was over. The third way is when a court just says what the law is, like in the Neubauer case, where the court did not directly tell the government what to do. The government still changed the law because of the court decision. Germany changed its climate law just a few months after the court decision. All three of these ways have one thing, in common: if someone does not do what the court says they can be held in contempt of court. However, courts usually prefer to work with governments to make sure they comply than punishing them right away.

Challenges And Limitations

Climate change lawsuits have some problems that we need to talk about. The main issue is that courts in the United States do not think they have the power to decide on these cases. They say that climate change is a political matter and that they cannot get involved. This happened in the Juliana case, where the court said that it was up to the branches of government to deal with climate change, not the courts. Another problem is that it is hard for people to prove that they have been hurt by climate change and that the court can do something to help them. Climate change is a complex problem, and it is hard to say exactly who is responsible for the harm. Some courts have said that this is not a reason to dismiss the cases because if they do, then the government will not be held accountable for what it does about climate change.

When courts do rule in favor of the people who are suing, it is still hard to get the government to do what the court says. The government can drag its feet and only do the minimum required. This happened with the Leghari Commission, which was a court process in another country that was doing some work on climate change, but then the judge in charge left and the process weakened. Some people are even trying to use the courts to stop climate change action. They are filing lawsuits to try to block regulations and to silence environmental groups.

Global Snapshot

Despite all these problems, there is some good news. A report from the Grantham Research Institute found that in 57% of climate change cases, the court ruled in favor of the people who are trying to fight climate change. This shows that courts are starting to agree on some standards for what governments should be doing to address climate change, even if they are not telling them exactly what to do. Climate lawsuits have really taken off. By 2026, more than 3,400 cases were filed in over 55 countries and 24 international tribunals. The United States has the highest number of cases with 1,745, followed by Australia, the UK, Brazil, and Germany. Many cases are strategic lawsuits. 80% of new filings are of this type.

These cases are not only about fossil fuels anymore; they also involve airlines, food and beverage companies, e-commerce, and financial services. There are also cases about companies making false claims about being environmentally friendly, known as climate-washing litigation. In 2017, there were a few of these cases. Now there are over 140, and 70% of decided cases have been successful. This area is growing fast. New types of cases are emerging. These include cases about rebuilding after disasters, ecocide prosecutions, and linking biodiversity to climate change. Science is getting better at showing how specific extreme weather events are linked to greenhouse gas emissions. Successful cases have already led to changes. For example, Ireland and Germany have changed their laws. The Climate Superfund Act in Vermont was influenced by these cases. Financial regulators and insurers now see climate litigation risk as a significant and emerging concern.

Conclusion

The answer to the question of whether courts have the power to force governments to act on climate change is yes. This is demonstrated by multiple cases from the Netherlands to Pakistan, where courts have directed governments to act on climate change policies, as well as by constitutional tools such as Article 9A in Pakistan and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Netherlands. It is also reflected in international law, including the ICJ advisory proceedings on climate obligations.

Bibliography: 

Table of Cases

Asghar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan PLD 2018 Lahore 364.

Greenpeace Netherlands v State of the Netherlands (Bonaire) ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1347, District Court of The Hague, 28 January 2026.

Held v State 2024 MT 312.

Juliana v United States 947 F 3d 1159 (9th Cir 2020).

M K Ranjitsinh and Others v Union of India and Others (2024) INSC 280, Writ Petition (Civil) No 838 of 2019, Supreme Court of India, 21 March 2024.

Mehar Badshah v Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa PLD 2025 SC 36.

Neubauer and Others v Germany 1 BvR 2656/18, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 24 March 2021.

Pabai Pabai and another v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796.

Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693.

State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland App no 53600/20, Grand Chamber, ECtHR, 9 April 2024.

Advisory Opinions

Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change (Advisory Opinion) ICJ General List No 187, 23 July 2025.

Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law ITLOS Case No 31, Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024.

Treaties, Conventions and International Instruments

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, ETS 5.

Paris Agreement 2015, 55 ILM 740.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, 1833 UNTS 3.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, 1771 UNTS 107.

Constitutional and Policy Materials

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, arts 9, 9A and 14.

Government of Pakistan, National Climate Change Policy 2012.

Government of Pakistan, Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy 2014–2030.

Reports

Setzer J and Higham C, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science 2024).

Setzer J and Higham C, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science 2025).

Websites and Databases

Climate Case Chart, ‘Asghar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan’ (Climate Change Litigation Databases) https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/leghari-v-federation-of-pakistan_80c5 accessed 30 June 2026.

Climate Case Chart, ‘Juliana v United States’ (Climate Change Litigation Databases) https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/juliana-v-united-states_f8231e accessed 30 June 2026.

Climate Case Chart, ‘Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands’ (Climate Change Litigation Databases) https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/urgenda-foundation-v-state-of-the-netherlands_3297 accessed 30 June 2026.

Climate Case Chart, ‘Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland’ (Climate Change Litigation Databases) https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/klimaseniorinnen-v-switzerland-ecthr_e78f accessed 30 June 2026.

Climate Rights Database, ‘Urgenda Foundation v the Netherlands’ (Climate Rights Database, 20 December 2019) https://climaterightsdatabase.com/2019/12/20/urgenda-foundation-v-states-of-the-netherlands/ accessed 30 June 2026.

Climate Rights Database, ‘Verein KlimaSeniorinnen et al v Switzerland’ (Climate Rights Database, 9 April 2024) https://climaterightsdatabase.com/2024/04/09/european-court-of-human-rights-verein-klimaseniorinnen-v-switzerland/ accessed 30 June 2026.

Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, ‘Leghari v Federation of Pakistan’ (ELAW) https://elaw.org/resource/pk_leghari_v_pakistan_2015 accessed 30 June 2026.

International Bar Association Legal Policy & Research Unit, ‘Summary of the IBA Webinar: “Ten Years Since Leghari v Pakistan: The State of Play in International Climate Litigation”’ (International Bar Association, 20 October 2025) https://www.ibanet.org/webinar-summary-leghari-pakistan-climate-litigation accessed 30 June 2026.

Our Children’s Trust, ‘Juliana v United States’ (Our Children’s Trust) https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us accessed 30 June 2026.

SCOTUSblog, ‘Juliana v United States’ (SCOTUSblog) https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/juliana-v-united-states/ accessed 30 June 2026.

Urgenda Foundation, ‘English Translation: Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation’ (Urgenda Foundation, 20 December 2019) https://www.urgenda.nl/wp-content/uploads/ENG-Dutch-Supreme-Court-Urgenda-v-Netherlands-20-12-2019.pdf accessed 30 June 2026.