BEYOND THE COURTROOM: THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHTS-BASED CLIMATE LITIGATION FROM URGENDA TO HELD AND ITS POLICY IMPACT

Abstract

This paper examines the growing trend of employing international and human rights law in domestic climate change lawsuits as a strategic tool for legal action. Using a qualitative and comparative analysis of seminal case law, such as Urgenda Foundation v the Netherlands and R (Friends of the Earth and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd and Held v State, this paper aims to explain the juridical trajectories and methodologies employed in rights-based climate litigation. The primary objective is to critically evaluate the potential regulatory impact of this emergent jurisprudential paradigm on both domestic legislation and international climate change treaties. The study posits that when traditional enforcement mechanisms enshrined in international environmental law treaties prove ineffective, domestic litigation grounded in human rights claims serve as a catalyst for transformative jurisprudence. This, in turn, can exert substantial pressure on state and non-state actors, compelling them to adopt more strict regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. The aim of this paper is twofold: first, to elucidate the effectiveness and development of rights-based jurisprudence in climate litigation, and second, to assess its potential for influencing the creation of stronger regulatory mechanisms at both state and international levels. The paper argues that when international treaties fail to take adequate climate change action, domestic lawsuits based on human rights claims start to serve as a lever of change, pressuring both state and non-state actors into adopting more ambitious measures. The study underscores the importance of this rights-based approach not merely as a legal strategy but as a multifaceted tool for effectuating systemic regulatory advancements and fostering climate justice.