This book examines lawsuits over climate change that have been brought around the world. It can serve as a resource for those interested in the problem of climate change and in the role that courts are playing in climate regulation. The chapters analyze examples of cases in state, national, and international tribunals, as well as this litigation's broader significance.

There is a consensus in climate science - the science that studies climate and climate change -and in the international community that without ambitious climate action, multiple tipping points will be triggered thereby causing adverse impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. That being the case, the overarching question remains to be-are we taking adequate mitigation and adaptation measures to prevent the negative climate change impacts before these multiple tipping points are triggered? To answer this question, two immutable principles come intoplay. First, you cannot use an old map to explore a new world and relatedly to this, insanityis doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. From these, it is suggested that if we are to make any progress in combating climate change, we ought to review whether the intergovernmental negotiations paradigm where political actors play the dominant role in the development of norms to deal with climate change is adequate to counter the looming existential threat of climate change. The underpinning argument here is that while intergovernmental negotiations have not irretrievably broken down the frays of multilateralism, an ambitious and progressive climate action demands a more deliberate inclusion of international adjudication as a supplementary tool to complement and overcome the blind spots of international negotiations. International adjudication will strengthen multilateralism and salvage international negotiations from becoming “empty institutional hangovers” of a lingering status quo in the face of the unfolding climate disaster. The article specifically focuses on the “progressive” action to involve international adjudicatory bodiesthrough their advisory jurisdiction to help clarify the obligations of States and the legal consequences thereof arising from States' obligations in respect of climate change. An advisory function here signifies progress and is a valuable tool to bridge the gap between the reality of climate change impacts and the uncertainty in the promise of international law to tackle this reality. The article particularly addresses the prospects of the initiative of Vanuatu to have the UN General Assembly request an advisory opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”). Based on the draft UN General Assembly Resolution on: “Request for an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the obligations of States in respect of climate change” circulated by Vanuatu to the broader UN membership on 30th November 2022, to analyse the prospects of an advisory opinion, the article identifies three aspects: jurisdiction of the ICJ, discretion and potential compelling reasons and the utility of the advisory to the UN General Assembly. After weighing the legal and political risks attendant to an ICJ advisory opinion, the article concludes that while our climate change situation demands this “progressive” intervention it should not be lost that international adjudication and particularly an advisory opinion by the ICJ on climate change is not the panacea and will not solve the problems derived from climate change. Nevertheless, used as a bridging gap, it will enhance the interpretation and application of applicable treaties, conventions, policy intentions and rules in light of climate change.

A provocative contribution to the climate justice debate Climate change and justice are so closely associated that many people take it for granted that a global climate treaty should—indeed, must—directly address both issues together. But, in fact, this would be a serious mistake, one that, by dooming effective international limits on greenhouse gases, would actually make the world's poor and developing nations far worse off. This is the provocative and original argument of Climate Change Justice. Eric Posner and David Weisbach strongly favor both a climate change agreement and efforts to improve economic justice. But they make a powerful case that the best—and possibly only—way to get an effective climate treaty is to exclude measures designed to redistribute wealth or address historical wrongs against underdeveloped countries. In clear language, Climate Change Justice proposes four basic principles for designing the only kind of climate treaty that will work—a forward-looking agreement that requires every country to make greenhouse-gas reductions but still makes every country better off in its own view. This kind of treaty has the best chance of actually controlling climate change and improving the welfare of people around the world.

This pioneering study on environmental case-law examines how courts engage with science and reviews legitimate styles of judicial reasoning.

Climate change issues are being raised and increasingly considered in water litigation and in environmental policy more generally. This document notes the escalating importance for water management of the "climate change/hydrologic cycle" link and sketches implications for courts. The general problem climate change presents to courts in water disputes is how to deal with decision-making in light of greater uncertainty. The report, written by experts in water law, climate science, and environmental law surveys several tools judges can use to understand the new science of climate change, and some of the options for resolving water disputes in ways that reflect a more rapidly changing and uncertain world.

This ground-breaking volume provides analyses from experts around the globe on the part played by national and international law, through legislation and the courts, in advancing efforts to tackle climate change, and what needs to be done in the future. Published under the auspices of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), the volume builds on an event convened at BIICL, which brought together academics, legal practitioners and NGO representatives. The volume offers not only the insights from that event, but also additional materials, sollicited to offer the reader a more complete picture of how climate change litigation is evolving in a global perspective, highlighting both opportunities, and constraints.

Report 2 contains a comprehensive review of the growing number and variety of climate lawsuits in Asia and the Pacific. It underscores the unique flavor and voice of regional jurisprudence and compares it with global approaches. Climate change in Asia and the Pacific is deadly and impacts communities now. The report details why and how regional climate litigation seeks relief in increasingly urgent ways. It is the second in the four-part series that ADB produced in recognition of the inevitability of increased litigation in the era of climate change.