Climate Change Litigation in the Global South: Filling in Gaps

Joana Setzer,Lisa Benjamin

doi:10.1017/aju.2020.6

Joana Setzer, Lisa Benjamin

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2020.6

Copy DOI

Abstract

New scholarship has identified trends, constraints, and opportunities for climate litigation in the Global South. While countries in the Global South tend to experience a lack of capacity within government agencies, civil society, and the judiciary, the Global South is not a homogenous group. Where climate litigation has been identified, the judiciary is often implementing government policy prescriptions in the absence of detailed climate legislation or filling enforcement gaps. But there are also a number of countries where climate litigation is not taking place or where gaps exist between ongoing litigation and traditional definitions of climate litigation. The scholarship is yet to further explore the relationship between climate legislation and litigation in the Global South, in particular in circumstances where ripe policy and legislative conditions for climate litigation exist. Taking into account different regional and national experiences, this essay explores that relationship.

Highlights

New scholarship has identified trends, constraints, and opportunities for climate litigation in the Global South
A rights-based approach might prove fruitful in Latin America due to progressive constitutional protections for environmental rights in that region.[5]. Another common trend in Global South climate litigation is that litigants in the cases identified tend to rely on existing non-climate-specific legislation, with climate change appearing in the “periphery” in 59 percent of cases.[6]
Governments, civil society, and the private sector would be investing their efforts in climate action, rather than bringing and being involved in litigation

Summary

Introduction

New scholarship has identified trends, constraints, and opportunities for climate litigation in the Global South. Where climate litigation has been identified, the judiciary is often implementing government policy prescriptions in the absence of detailed climate legislation or filling enforcement gaps.

Results

Conclusion