Legal Action to Get My Government to Reduce Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A question to ask yourself when considering bringing a case to court is whether bringing the case is the right decision for you. You should continue to ask yourself at each stage of your case’s preparation.

The following of advantages and disadvantages is designed to help you consider whether a mitigation claim is right for you.

If you are bringing a mitigation claim, you will usually bring a claim under national human rights, constitutional or administrative law. These types of laws fall within an area of law called “public law”. This is the body of law that regulates the relationship between the State and individuals.

There are many different areas of public law. Each area prevents public bodies from doing certain things or requires them to do certain things, and provides consequences when laws are broken.

Once you have outlined the facts of your case, look at the areas of law below and see which most closely relates to your situation. Then check your national law to see what the law is in your country.

Remember:
Your legal analysis has to be supported by the evidence you have gathered. You should consider seeking legal advice. A lawyer with expertise in the relevant area should be able to provide advice on the options available to you and advise on your chances of success.

The types of evidence you may need to support your argument will be outlined later in this section.

The specific content of these laws will change in different countries. However, below are the main types of law on which you could have a “cause of action” for a mitigation claim on.

(a) Human and Constitutional Rights

Human rights are the rights and freedoms held by every human being without discrimination. Human rights protect our basic needs and freedoms. Human rights are contained in international human rights instruments, such as:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
• If a state signs and ratifies these treaties, they become “binding” on your state at international law. You can check whether your country has signed and ratified a UN Human Rights Treaty here.

These rights also often included in national constitutions and human rights laws. It is these laws that you will generally enforce in national courts.

• There may be rights protected in your national constitution that aren’t expressly protected in an international human rights treaty, such as the right to a healthy environment; and
• International human rights laws may not create legal rights or obligations which are enforceable in national courts, whereas rights under national constitutions are often enforceable in national courts.

Key Resource: A People’s Guide on Holding Your Government Accountable for Climate Change

Greenpeace International, a partner of A4J, has created an excellent guide on how to bring a human rights-based climate change case against the government. It goes into detail on:

• Climate science you could use as evidence;
• How to identify enforceable human rights;
• Issues of admissibility (i.e. standing and justiciability);
• How you can prove a violation of your human rights; and
• How to develop a rights-based campaign strategy to complement your case.

If you want to find out more about bringing a human rights-based mitigation claim after reading this section, we recommend reading the Greenpeace Guide.

(i) What Human Rights Are Impacted by Climate Change?

Climate change poses a serious threat to the enjoyment and exercise of our human rights.

Key Resource: The OHCHR Study on the Relationship between Human Rights and Climate Change

Although it is now quite dated, this is a useful UN paper that provides an overview of the impacts climate change has on different human rights. It provides useful information for human rights-based arguments and has reference to evidence that shows how human rights will be affected.

The following human rights are most clearly affected by climate change:

• The right to life: Climate change poses a threat to human life due to the higher incidence of mortality associated with extreme weather events, increased heat, drought, disease.
• The right to health: Climate change can impact health by increasing heat-related respiratory and cardiovascular diseases caused by extreme weather events and natural disasters and nutrition deficits linked to food shortages and loss of livelihoods. There is also evidence of an increase in vector-borne diseases linked to climate change.
• The right to a healthy environment: Climate change has huge impacts on ecosystems, threatening biodiversity, causing ocean acidification and desertification.
• The right to food: Changes in temperature and precipitation may affect crop production and warming oceans can affect fishing productivity.
• The right to water: Climate change will increase drought in currently dry areas.
• The right to property and housing: Rising sea levels, flooding, forest fires and other climate-related harms will deprive many people of their housing and property.
• The right to private and family life: In countries where the rights to health, housing or a healthy environment are not recognized, the right to private/family life provides some protection for the same issues.
• The right to self-determination: Climate change threatens the existence and traditional livelihoods of whole nations. For example, rising sea levels have resulted in a threat to the physical and cultural survival of various Pacific island nations.

(ii) What Are My Government’s Relevant Human Rights Obligations?

Governments have an obligation to protect human rights: This obligation requires governments to take action to prevent third parties (e.g. corporations, individuals) from interfering with human rights.

• For example, governments must adopt and enforce laws regulating corporations, ensure they are held accountable and that people receive a remedy when they interfere with your human rights.
• For further information on this general obligation, see the A4J Business and Human Rights Guide.

Key Case: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on the Environment and Human Rights

The IACtHR held that the obligation for States to guarantee (i.e. protect) rights under the American Convention on Human Rights included an obligation to prevent significant damage to the environment which would interfere with other rights. This obligation includes:

• A duty to regulate activities that threaten to cause environmental damage which impact other rights;
• A duty to supervise and control such activities; and
• A duty to mitigate environmental damage that is occurring.

The IACtHR made it clear that these obligations apply to climate change.

Key Case to Watch: Álvarez et al v. Peru

 In 2019 a group of youths filed a complaint against the Peruvian government for its alleged failure to halt deforestation in the Amazon. The youths have argued that this failure means the government has not taken sufficient action to address climate change. The claimants have also argued that their human and constitutional rights to a healthy environment, life, water and health have been violated.

The claimants are seeking an order that requires the Peruvian government to take mitigation and adaptation measures as well as establish concrete plan to reduce and prevent further deforestation in the Amazon.

The obligation to protect is most relevant because private persons, particularly corporations, are responsible for most GHG emissions.

• The key point to make in human rights-based mitigation claims is that the obligation to protect certain human rights requires that the government takes regulatory measures to reduce GHG emissions created by private actors in its territory.

Focus Point: The Principle of “Shared Responsibility”

A defence often raised by governments in mitigation claims is that climate change is a global issue and no single country is responsible for preventing it.

This is true. But, although the State cannot prevent climate change on its own, preventing climate change is a shared responsibility in which all States must take appropriate mitigation measures to prevent climate change. It should be argued that each State can be held accountable for their share of the responsibility to prevent climate change. In addition, the UNFCCC provides that each of the developed state parties commit to taking steps to limit its GHG emissions within its own jurisdiction, as well as the overarching agreement that this is a shared responsibility amongst all states.

This argument was accepted by the Dutch Supreme Court in Urgenda v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(iii) What Right Should I Base My Claim on?

In deciding which rights to base a mitigation claim on, you need to consider:

1. How does or will climate change affect my human rights?

After you have gathered evidence about the impacts of climate change on your country or region, think about the climate impacts outlined in the introduction to this Guide and the list of rights above. Then narrow down the most relevant rights to your factual situation.

• For example, if you live in a coastal area and your housing is threatened by rising sea levels, the right to property, housing or private/family life may be most relevant.

2. What human rights are legally enforceable in my country?

After you have identified the most relevant human rights, you need to check which ones are legally enforceable in your country. Although human rights are universal in principle, they may not all be recognized in a law that you can enforce.

If you want to enforce a human right in national courts, it must generally be contained in:

• Your national constitution or national human rights laws; and/or
• An international or regional human rights treaty which is directly enforceable in your country.

Example: Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v Swiss Federal Government

A group of senior Swiss women used human rights and constitutional law to challenge their government’s inadequate climate policies. Climate change is affecting their human rights through severe heat waves which have profound impacts on their life, health and wellbeing.

Although the claim did not succeed before the Swiss Courts, they argued that their government’s failure to reduce Switzerland’s GHG emissions violates:

1. Their rights to life and to private/family life under the Swiss Constitution; and

2. Their rights to life and private/family life under the European Convention of Human Rights, which can be enforced directly in Switzerland.

There is also a possibility of taking a claim to enforce rights contained in an international or regional human rights treaty in an international or regional human rights body. This is discussed in Alternatives to Court.

Also, even where you are enforcing rights protected in a national constitution in national courts, the interpretation and application of that right to your case could be influenced by how similar rights are understood and enforced at the international level. For more information on how international law can be used in national courts, see What Laws Could I Enforce? in the A4J Going to Court: Q&A

(iv) How Can I Argue that the Government Has Violated My Human Rights?

Once you have identified a relevant and legally enforceable right, you need to argue that the government has violated that right. This means that it has breached the human rights obligations it owes you.

In essence, what you will be arguing is that the government’s failure to take adequate mitigation measures (i.e. its failure to reduce its country’s GHG emissions as required by the IPCC and the Paris Agreement) has contributed to climate impacts and, consequently, violated your human rights.

For this argument to be successful, you usually need to show:

• There has been an interference with your enjoyment of a human right. This means that climate change has affected your rights, and this is connected to your government’s failure to reduce its country’s GHG emissions. You will have to show the impact on your enjoyment of the human right has (i) reached a minimum threshold of seriousness, and (ii) is caused by climate change and (partly) by your country’s GHG emissions. To demonstrate this, it will be important to have evidence of the legal test and threshold of seriousness to meet in your country, past cases which have reached this threshold, climate change’s impact on you, the causes of climate change and your country’s GHG emissions; and
• The interference cannot be justified. Governments usually try to justify their GHG emissions on the basis of development goals or economic well-being. You have to show that the government’s failure to reduce its GHG emissions was an unreasonable or disproportionate way to achieve these objectives when compared to the impact their failure has had on your rights. This will be a highly contested and fact sensitive argument. It will depend on the level of harm you have or will suffer, the economic development of your country and their level of emissions relative to the goals in the Paris Agreement.

You can find more information on this issue in the People’s Guide on Holding Your Government Accountable for Climate Change.

(b) Judicial Review and Constitutional Principles

In many countries, there are constitutional or public law principles which make an action or omission of a public body unlawful. Below are some common examples of these principles.

(i) Acting without lawful authority

Where there is a law in your country which sets limits or conditions on the government’s powers when it comes to climate policy but the government acts outside those limits, its act can be challenged. For example:

• If there is a law in your country which requires the government to seek parliamentary approval or hold an environmental impact assessment before setting a mitigation target, the proposed mitigation target can be challenged if the government does not abide by the above limits/conditions; and
• If there is a law which requires any mitigation targets to be above a minimum level and the proposed mitigation target falls below that limit, the target can be challenged.

Example: Friends of the Irish Environment v Ireland

In 2017, an advocacy group brought a case against the Irish government, arguing that the government’s National Mitigation Plan was unlawful and should be quashed, in part, because it violated Ireland’s Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court issued a ruling quashing the Plan. The Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 required the State to put forth at regular intervals a national low-carbon transition and mitigation plan in line with its national transition objective for 2050 (i.e. cutting GHG emissions by 80% of 1990 levels). The Court held that the National Mitigation Plan failed to make clear how Ireland would achieve its 2050 goals under the Act and was unlawful as a result. The Court noted that a lawful plan must be ‘sufficiently specific as to policy for the whole period to 2050.’

(ii) Failing to take action required by law

If there is climate change legislation which requires the government to take certain mitigation measures and the government fails (or is projected to fail) to do this, this can be challenged.

Key Source: The Law and Climate Change Toolkit

This is a database of legal provisions in different countries that relate to climate change. You can find information on:

• Climate change legislation that exists in different countries;
• An assessment of the quality of climate change legislation in these countries; and
• Recommendations on best practice.

You can use this database to find out whether there is legislation on which you could base a mitigation claim against your government. Alternatively, if you find out your government has no climate law legislation or there are gaps in the law, this could be used to strengthen a human rights-based argument that your government is not doing enough (see above).

See also on Climate Change Laws of the World Database.

(iii) Misinterpretation of law

Where the government has justified the mitigation measures it is taking under a certain law, but their decision was based on an interpretation of the law which you believe is wrong, the proposed mitigation target could be challenged.

Example: Plan B v Secretary of State for Business, Industrial and Energy Strategy

In the UK, an environmental organisation brought a case against the government for failing to revise their 2050 mitigation target after the Paris Agreement.

• The government’s view was that the Paris Agreement’s reference to “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees” was only intended to strengthen efforts to limit temperature rises to 2 degrees.
• Plan B argued this interpretation of the Paris Agreement was incorrect and, because the government relied on this interpretation in making their decision not to change the 2050 target, this decision was based on an error of law and was illegal.

The case was recently dismissed by the Court of Appeal. A more obvious case of misinterpretation may be required for future cases to be successful.

(iv) Improper purpose

If a climate change law in your country has a specific objective, government mitigation measures under this law could be challenged if they are contrary to this objective.

Example: Thompson v Minister for Climate Change Issues

A student from New Zealand challenged the government’s decision not to change their 2050 GHG emissions reduction target after the release of the IPCC’s AR5 report, which stated that tougher targets were needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

The court ruled that an objective of New Zealand’s Climate Change Response Act 2002 is for New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the UNFCCC and take mitigation measures to avoid dangerous climate change. It was contrary to this objective for the government not to review its 2050 target after the release of new IPCC science that required stronger action. However, because the new government had changed its policy shortly before the case was heard, no order from the court was needed and the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.

(v) Relevant and irrelevant considerations

Where a law gives the government discretion on what mitigation measures it can take, its decision in how it exercises this discretion could be challenged if you can show that it took irrelevant considerations into account, or it failed to take relevant considerations into account when making its decision.

Example: Thompson v Minister for Climate Change Issues

It was also argued in Thompson that the government’s decision not to revise its 2050 target was because unlawful because the government failed to consider the following factors when it made its decision:

• The costs of dealing with climate impacts;
• The inadequacy of its measures in light of new climate science; and
• The fact New Zealand, as a developed country, has a greater responsibility to take mitigation measures.

The court ruled that these were mandatory considerations but that the government had considered them. Therefore, although one can disagree with the government’s decision, it was not unlawful on this basis.

(vi) The Doctrine of Irrationality or Unreasonableness

Irrationality is a principle in which a decision of a public body can be challenged if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made the decision.

Example: Thompson v Minister for Climate Change Issues

It was also argued in Thompson that the government’s failure to revise their 2050 target was irrational as, if every developed country adopted that target, the world could not avoid dangerous climate change.

The court rejected this argument as New Zealand’s targets were similar to other countries and had some scientific support. This meant they couldn’t be considered irrational.

This is a high threshold and would likely only be successful if a government was taking no mitigation measures or completely inadequate measures.

(c) The Doctrine of Public Trust

In some countries there is a legal doctrine called public trust which requires the government to take measures to protect the shared natural resources of the State.

Example: Juliana v United States

A group of youths argued that the US government’s failure to take appropriate mitigation measures violated the public trust because it demonstrates the government is not taking adequate steps to protect the natural resources of the State (which will be impacted by climate change).

In 2016, the Oregon Federal Court denied a motion to dismiss their claim, ruling that they had a reasonable claim based on the doctrine of public trust.

However, in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the claim on the grounds the youths did not have standing and the claim concerned a political question. These issues are addressed in other parts of this Guide.

There are a limited number of cases where a public trust claim succeeded. However, the success of the case was dependent on the incorporation of the public trust doctrine into the state’s constitution.

Check your country’s constitution to see the doctrine has been incorporated into your constitution.

To be able to bring a constitutional, public law or human rights claim, you must have “standing” (i.e. the legal right to bring a claim).

The following types of people can often have standing to bring public law claims. But you have to check this in your country’s legal system:

(a) Affected Individuals and Groups

Claims can generally only be brought by the person who has been harmed when a national law is broken.

Some jurisdictions permit multiple affected individuals to be represented collectively by a claimant. These actions may be called a “group”, “collective” or “class” action.

In mitigation claims, a person or group of people who have been or will be affected by climate impacts could potentially have standing. However, a difficulty in some countries is that you will have to show that climate change will affect you in a way that is different or worse than how it will affect other people. This special impact could be because of:

• Physical health conditions of yours which make you especially vulnerable to climate change;
• Your geographic location is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts; or
• Your way of life and culture are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts
• It could also be argued that young people, who will have to live through the worst impacts of climate change is no action is taken, will be particularly affected because of future harms.

Example: Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v Swiss Federal Government

In 2018, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court dismissed a mitigation claim brought by a group of senior women on the basis that everyone in Switzerland would be affected by climate change and the women would not be particularly affected.

The decision was appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court. The group bringing the case argued that the women, due to their age and gender, are particularly affected by heatwaves which are connected to climate change. However, the appeal was rejected on the basis of the court’s view that fundamental human rights will not be breached until the Paris long-term temperature goal has actually been exceeded. Other courts may not follow this reasoning.

Claimants do not always have to be individuals or groups of individuals. For example, a Wildlife Trust that owns a nature reserve  affected by climate change might be permitted to bring a case.

(b) Public Interest Groups

In some countries, groups that have an interest in a particular issue can bring a case that involves that issue even if they aren’t personally affected.

Example: Urgenda Foundation v Kingdom of the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, claims can be brought by groups that involve public or collective interests, as long as the group represents these interests.

It was ruled that the Urgenda Foundation, a citizens’ platform founded to prevent climate change, was able to bring a mitigation claim.

In other countries, such as the Philippines and Uganda, there are “open-standing provisions”, where persons can seek to enforce environmental legislation and constitutional provisions without showing harm. Check if this possibility exists in your country.

For more information, see Who Can Take Legal Action?

For mitigation claims, the appropriate defendant could be:

• The State as a whole (i.e. your country); or
• The government department, ministry or body that is responsible for deciding climate policy in your country.

Mitigation claims are also typically brought against industrialised countries (e.g. USA, Germany, Argentina etc) who are responsible for a large proportion of global GHG emissions.

Focus Point: Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR)

This principle is contained in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It means that developed countries should have the greatest responsibility to reduce GHG emissions as they are most responsible for climate change and have the greatest ability to prevent it.

The principle of CBDR could make it more difficult to bring a mitigation claim against a developing country:

• Although all countries have an obligation to reduce their GHG emissions, the strict targets outlined in the IPCC reports are directed at developed countries.
• This could make it more difficult to find a mitigation target to judge your country’s mitigation measures against.
• Also, the principle of CBDR means that developed countries have stricter obligations to reduce GHG emissions while developing countries have more flexibility.

However, this doesn’t mean it’s impossible to bring a mitigation claim against a developing country.

• Rather, it means that your claim would probably have to ask for a lower level of GHG emissions reductions from the government.
• Such claims are more likely to be successful when your government is taking no mitigation measures or isn’t reducing its GHG emissions at all.

Example: Maria Khan v Federal Republic of Pakistan

This is a mitigation claim thatis being brought against the government by a woman in rural Pakistan. She is arguing the government’s complete failure to reduce its GHG emissions and approve green energy initiatives violates her constitutional rights to life, dignity and a healthy environment.

It may also be possible to bring a mitigation claim against a foreign country.

Area to Watch: Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations
There is growing acceptance that governments human rights obligations extend to persons outside their borders. It may therefore be possible to bring a mitigation claim against a government of another country where their failure to reduce GHG emissions has impacted your human rights.

For example, a claim in a court in France in relation to emissions from France might include Claimants from Fiji. This is potentially important because the people often most damaged from climate change are from states which group contribute least to global emissions.

In public law actions, it’s the claimant who has the “burden of proof”. This means the person bringing a civil claim needs to prove their case.

One of the first things you need to do then to bring a successful claim is gather evidence that will be accepted in court. You need to have a set of facts that describes what happened and evidence that supports your “version of events” (i.e. what you are saying happened).

When you are bringing a mitigation claim, you will need evidence to support 5 things:

(a) The Occurrence, Causes and Impacts of Climate Change

You will need to provide evidence that:

• Global temperatures are rising;
• This is caused by man-made GHG emissions; and
• The warming of the Earth will have serious local and/or national impacts (see Climate Change).

Useful and publicly available sources of evidence were outlined in Climate Litigation Basics.

When presenting evidence on climate impacts, you should focus on the particular climate impact that affects you and your community.

• For example, if the specific loss and damage in your case (see below) is caused by forest fires, emphasis should be placed on the relationship between climate change and forest fires in your region.

(b) Mitigation Targets

You need to outline the minimum rate at which your country should reduce its GHG emissions over a certain period of time (“the minimum appropriate mitigation target”).

To do this, first, identify the maximum safe global temperature increase your claim will be based on. Different limits are used in the IPCC studies and the Paris Agreement. The main ones are:

• The 2°C Limit: The IPCC 4^th Assessment Report set 2°C as the maximum temperature increase to avoid dangerous climate change (the Paris Agreement sets the target of “well below 2°”); and
• The 1.5°C Limit: The more recent IPCC 1.5°C Special Report sets 1.5°C as the maximum temperature increase to avoid dangerous climate change. This has been accepted by many countries, and the Paris Agreement states countries should pursue efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Climate science and the current international consensus point in favour of the 1.5°C limit. However, a key factor in choosing a target can be what mitigation target is set in your country’s national law.

Secondly, identify the minimum targets of GHG emission reduction that your country must follow to stay within the 2°C or 1.5°C limit. This will depend on: (1) the temperature limit you pick; (2) your country’s level of development; and (3) any legal/political commitments your country has made. For example:

• Where a 2°C limit is picked, the IPCC 4^th Assessment Report shows that industrialised countries must reduce their emissions by at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2030;
• Where a 1.5°C limit is picked, the IPCC 1.5°C Special Report still maintains a minimum mitigation target of at least 50% by 2030 (depending on the pathway you choose);
• If you live in a developing country, the mitigation target is likely to be lower; but
• If your country has adopted a specific mitigation target in law or has committed to a mitigation target in policy (e.g. its INDCs under the Paris Agreement), these targets could be used against them in court.

(c) Your Country’s Emissions and Mitigation Measures

The extent to which your country has contributed (and will likely continue to contribute) to climate change has to be proven. This can be done by:

• Outlining the amount of GHG emissions that come from your country;
• Outlining the level of GHG reduction that your country has made; and
• On the basis of current policy, outline statistics that project the level of GHG emissions your country will make by 2030 and/or 2050 (the actual mitigation target).

Key Source: Climate Action Tracker

This is a very useful scientific analysis that tracks government climate action and measures it against the objectives of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5°C and 2°C. It provides information on a country-by-country basis on:

• The level of GHG emissions of different countries;
• The climate action governments have already taken (i.e. their current levels of GHG emissions reductions);
• The pledges and commitments governments have made to reduce GHG emissions; and
• An analysis of whether individual countries are doing their “fair share” on the basis of their level of development.

These statistics need to be compared with the minimum appropriate mitigation target which you identified. This provides the basis of your argument that your government is not doing enough to prevent climate change.

Key Example: Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc v Environment Protection Authority

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc are a group of people who have experienced the harmful effects of the Australian bushfires. They brought a claim against the New South Wales (NSW) Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and are challenging the EPA’s inadequate response to climate change and lack GHG emissions policy. They are seeking to compel the EPA.

The latest ruling on 4th November 2020 will allow the Bushfire Survivors to present expert scientific evidence on climate change, including whether emissions trajectories for NSW, and the world, are on track with the targets in the Paris Agreement. The claimants’ representatives, Environmental Defenders Office, have noted ‘it is the first time an Australian court has ruled on whether evidence on climate change can be allowed to be heard in a case involving an alleged failure by a Government agency to perform a statutory duty.’

(d) Personal Loss, Injury and Damage

In certain cases, the specific loss or damage the you have suffered, are suffering or will likely suffer as a result of climate change needs to be detailed. This may include:

• Property damage (e.g. extreme weather events such as forest fires, storms and floods that have endangered or destroyed the claimant’s property);
• Economic loss (e.g. sea level rises, drought, ocean acidification or loss of biodiversity which has affected the claimant’s way of life/occupation); or
• Personal injury: Extreme weather events or temperature changes that have affected the claimant’s health or well-being.

Evidence on specific loss and damage will be particularly important in the following cases:

• Where an individual or individuals are bringing a claim that their human rights have been violated, evidence will generally be required to prove an interference (see section 2(a));
• Where an individual must show they are individually or specially affected to have standing (see section 3(a)); and
• Where an individual or individuals are seeking damages/compensation (see section 7).

In contrast, evidence of specific loss and damage is not generally required where:

• Human rights and constitutional cases are brought in the general public interest (see section 3(b)). In such cases, it is often enough to provide evidence of the general harms caused by climate change; and
• In judicial review type cases arguing that government act is unlawful or irrational. In such cases, it is generally sufficient to prove government act is contrary to law, without showing individual harm, unless this is required for standing (see section 2(b)).

The specific loss and damage your claim is based on needs to be consistent with and supported by the climate science on the impacts of climate change on your country or region.

Practical Tip: Sources of Evidence

Useful evidence to demonstrate personal loss, injury and damage include:

• Witness statements from yourself and people in your community/group who have been affected by climate change impacts;
• Photographs, videos and satellite images;
• Environmental samples from the local area demonstrating environmental harm (e.g. ocean acidification);
• Local scientific, university, NGO/CSO and government reports, and an expert witness which corroborates the harm claimed by witnesses; and
• News reports of extreme weather events in the area.

(e) The Evidence Must Be Linked to the Legal Basis of Your Claim

This evidence also needs to relate to the legal basis of your claim. It is not enough to show that climate change affects you and that emissions in a country are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. The evidence has to support your legal argument that your government’s failure to reduce its GHG emissions corresponds with the breach of a legal obligation. See the sub-section above for examples of what the legal basis of your claim could be.

Mitigation claims are usually taken in national administrative or constitutional courts.

• In some countries, this process is called “judicial review” or a “constitutional petition”.
• In many Latin American countries, this process is called “amparo proceedings”.

The procedure that you have to follow will depend on whether you live in a “common law country” or “civil law country”.  The law in your country will outline a judicial review, constitutional petition or amparo process, so that you can bring a claim to the courts and the court may review the situation and provide a remedy.

Focus Point: Limitation Periods 

A limitation period imposes a time limit within which a claimant may bring a case. The limitation period depends on the precise cause of action and will dictate the amount of time you have to file your case in court. If you do not file your case within the relevant limitation period, you may be prevented from bringing the claim.

Research the law in your country to determine the relevant limitation period for your claim. You will also need to identify when the time starts running for the limitation period. Time may start running from one of the following:

• The date the harm occurred (e.g. when a forest fire occurred);
• The date you learned about the harm; or
• The date the government made the specific policy decision or took an action that you are challenging.

In climate cases, it can be argued that there is “continuing harm” because the threat of climate change and the government’s failure to take sufficient action are ongoing. In some systems, the time limit will not begin to run where the harm in continuing.

It may also be possible to apply for the limitation period to be extended.

Generally, you will have to meet the following requirements to bring a constitutional or administrative claim:

Focus Area: Complaints to Regional and International Human Rights Bodies

 If your claim is based on human rights, in some countries there is also the option to bring your case to a regional or international human rights body if you have been unsuccessful in national courts.

For more information, see Individual Complaints to Regional and International Human Rights Bodies.

If you bring a successful mitigation claim against the government in human rights, constitutional or public law, you could get one or more of the following “remedies”:

(a) Declaratory Judgment

Declaratory judgements are decisions where a court simply finds that the government has acted unlawfully but doesn’t tell them what to do.

Asking for a declaratory judgment that your government’s climate policy is unlawful can be a useful way of anticipating justiciability arguments that the court is being asked to make decisions which should be left to political bodies. By not asking the court to tell the government exactly what to do, you can argue that the separation of powers is being respected (for more information, click here).

Practical Tip: Using Declaratory Judgments to Your Advantage

Base your argument that the government has acted unlawfully on the fact that it has failed to reduce its GHG emissions in line with specific mitigation targets outlined in the IPCC Reports.

If the court rules that a government has acted unlawfully because it hasn’t reduced its GHG emissions by a specific minimum amount (e.g. 50% on 1990 levels by 2030), it implies a specific obligation for the government to reduce its GHG emissions by that amount.

If you believe your government has not properly enforced a declaratory judgement, you can go back to the court and ask them to define and enforce their judgement.

(b) Court Orders

If a court finds that the government has violated its obligation to protect, it may order the government to do the things it should have done. A court order in a mitigation claim could:

• Demand that the government reduces its GHG emissions to meet a certain mitigation target;
• Demand that the government sets a proper mitigation target;
• Demand specific mitigation measures, such as the phasing out of coal power stations; or
• Require the government to follow proper procedures when setting a new mitigation target.

If you can get a court order, this can make the process of enforcing your judgement easier.

Example: Urgenda Foundation v Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to reduce its emissions by 25% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2020. The government has the discretion on how it implements this order (i.e. what policies it will take).

Example: De Justicia

In this case, the claimants were group of young people in Colombia who claimed that their rights were infringed by the Colombian government’s failure to do more about reducing climate change by reducing deforestation.

The Colombian Supreme Court ordered government departments and ministries to prepare a plan within a specific timeframe to counteract the rate of deforestation.

Example: Friends of the Irish Environment v Ireland

The Irish Supreme Court reversed the lower High Court decision and issued a ruling quashing the government’s National Mitigation Plan.

It is important to remember that the affected individuals and communities should lead on deciding which remedies are appropriate, as opposed to NGOs or lawyers. Consider the community impacts of each possible remedy.

If you want more information:

• On remedies, go to our general page on What Remedies Are Available?
• On how to enforce a remedy if the defendant is not cooperating, go to our general page on How Can I Enforce a Court Order?

If you are considering bringing a mitigation claim against your government after reading this section, we recommend that you download the Action4Justice Mitigation Claim Template.

Key Resource: The Action4Justice Mitigation Claim Template

The Template provides a skeleton for people to follow if they want to bring mitigation claims. The Templates have been designed by legal professionals with expertise in climate litigation.

The Templates aim to encourage effective use of the law to bring climate related litigation in appropriate cases by providing:

• An appropriate format for drafting a document in which to make a claim (“the legal complaint” – paragraphs, font, page numbers, title, headings etc);
• An effective structure in which users can place their legal and factual arguments regarding climate change;
• An outline of the arguments that could be used when bringing climate litigation; and
• References to climate science and cases to help the user build a strong case.

While your complaint needs to be different depending on what country you are taking a legal case, the Template provides useful tips and guidance to get you started if you are thinking about using legal action for climate justice.