CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF STATES

Published On: December 3rd 2025

Authored By: Harsha Darpe

Dr. Ambedkar College of law, Wadala

Abstract

Climate change changes how traditional public-law responsibilities are understood: it turns environmental policy into a matter of state duties under international law, human rights agreements, constitutional rights, and common-law rules (like the public trust and duty of care). Recent court cases such as Urgenda, Leghari, Friends of the Irish Environment, Milieudefensie v Shell, and youth-led suits like Juliana show that courts are becoming more willing to enforce these duties. But they also highlight the limits of legal principles, such as separation of powers, causation, and the ability of courts to provide remedies. This article explores the legal bases for state duties, looks at how courts approach these issues, places environmental justice within the legal framework, and suggests changes that would make climate obligations more enforceable and fairer.

Introduction[1]

Climate change is a classic problem where no one person or group can act alone, with long-term effects that often fall hardest on those who are already vulnerable.

Legal systems especially public law needs to answer two key questions: (1) what legal duties do states have to prevent and respond to climate impacts, and (2) how can these duties be shaped to take into account environmental justice (which means ensuring that poor, Indigenous, and marginalized communities are not unfairly burdened)? Over the past decade, courts in many countries have started to address these questions, using both rights-focused and duty-based arguments to push governments and, in some cases, private companies to take action. Important court decisions show the range of judicial involvement and the principles judges often use, which come from international agreements, scientific standards, and local constitutional and administrative law.

The Legal Basis for State Responsibilities

International Environmental and Treaty Law[2]

States have legal and political commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions and work together on adaptation.

Although the Paris Agreement uses nationally determined contributions (NDCs), its main goals and the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provide standards that domestic courts increasingly use to assess whether a state’s actions are reasonable and sufficient. Courts often use scientific guidelines as a basis for interpreting what specific duties a state must meet.

Human Rights Law and the Right to a Healthy Environment[3]

There has been a shift towards a rights-based approach following the international recognition of the right to a healthy environment.

In October 2021, the UN Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/48/13, and later in the same year, the UN General Assembly acknowledged the “human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.” These steps support arguments that states must carry out climate policies that protect the right to life, health, and a decent standard of living. They also form the basis for domestic human rights claims that connect inaction on climate change to breaches of these rights.

Domestic Public-Law Doctrines[4]

Courts use a range of domestic legal ideas to establish obligations: constitutional rights (explicit or implied), administrative law to review the quality of policies, tort-based duty of care when applicable, and public-trust or fiduciary doctrines that require governments to manage natural resources for both current and future generations.

In places with strong environmental constitutions or robust administrative standards, courts have more power to review and order government action. The Indian Supreme Court’s use of the public trust doctrine in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath shows how common law ideas can be applied to environmental protection.

Judicial Approaches: Five Types of Legal Remedies

A review of major cases shows five common types of court actions that courts use to turn legal duties into enforceable results:

Declaratory and supervisory relief courts declare state obligations and establish supervisory regimes like task forces or periodic reporting, rather than getting involved in the detailed management of policies. Leghari is a good example: the Lahore High Court transformed rights concerns into an institutional supervisory solution to ensure that policies are properly implemented.[5]
Requiring plans to be sufficient courts can cancel or ask for changes to national mitigation and adaptation plans if they don’t have the necessary details as required by law or don’t address scientific evidence properly. Friends of the Irish Environment shows how legal planning responsibilities can be enforced through the courts.
Some courts have asked for emission cuts based on scientific standards. In the Dutch Urgenda case, the court ordered the government to take actions that would help meet a specific emission reduction goal, compared to past years and global guidelines.[6]
Targeting private actors’ plaintiffs are increasingly taking corporations to court for their role in emitting greenhouse gases. The case of Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell resulted in a court order requiring Shell to reduce emissions by 45% (district court), showing a growing use of human rights and tort law against private companies that contribute to emissions. However, appeals highlight the challenges and uncertainties involved in pursuing such legal actions.[7]
Youth and generational claims young plaintiffs are asking for recognition of rights that span generations, specifically the right to a stable climate, as seen in cases like Juliana and related lawsuits. These cases examine legal standing and whether large-scale policy solutions can be addressed in court. They have had a significant impact even when they encountered legal challenges within the U.S. judicial system.^[8]

Case studies: doctrinal reasoning and limits

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands[9]

After a long legal process that ended with the Dutch Supreme Court’s judgment on 20 December 2019, the court ruled that the government had a responsibility to prevent dangerous climate change.

It supported an order that required more serious cuts in emissions, measured against levels from 1990 for the 2020 target. The court’s decision combined human rights standards, the duty of care in tort law and international obligations to justify overseeing the government’s climate policies. The Urgenda case is widely seen as a major example of a fair and scientifically based judicial solution.

Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan[10]

In 2015, the Lahore High Court (Green Bench) found that delays in carrying out Pakistan’s National Climate Change Policy violated people’s constitutional rights to life and dignity.

The court ordered several actions, including the creation of a climate change commission, setting up a timetable for implementation and regular reporting to the court. The Leghari case shows a practical approach to remedies that uses judicial supervision to make sure the government follows through on its plans, without the court getting involved in technical policy details.

Friends of the Irish Environment v. Government of Ireland[11]

The Irish Supreme Court cancelled Ireland’s National Mitigation Plan because it didn’t meet the specific requirements under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act.

This decision shows that courts are willing to check if plans meet clear legal standards, especially when laws set out clear procedures or goals. It also highlights the court’s careful approach in not interpreting an explicit constitutional “right to environment” where such a right isn’t clearly stated in the law.

Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell and corporate accountability[12]

In 2021, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels across scopes 1 to 3.

This decision was based on human rights and tort laws. The case set a new precedent for holding corporations accountable for climate change. Later developments in the appeals process, along with news reports, show that courts are interested in recognizing companies’ responsibilities, but also show some hesitation in setting exact emission targets for the courts to enforce. This case continues to be a model for climate-related lawsuits against corporations.

Environmental justice: embedding equity in climate obligations[13]

Environmental justice means that legal rules should not just lower overall emissions, but also deal with how the effects of climate change and climate policies are shared among people.

Three legal approaches are especially useful:

Procedural justice making sure that people, especially Indigenous communities, can take part meaningfully, get information, and if needed, give their informed consent before plans for reducing or adapting to climate change are made. These kinds of rights are often easier to enforce in court and help make sure that the voices of those who are often left out help shape the policies.
Distributive safeguards including fairness checks in national plans for dealing with climate change, making sure that support and money go to the most affected communities, and setting up legal ways to make sure that funds for adaptation reach the people who need them most.
Corrective and compensatory remedies allowing those who are harmed by government actions (or lack of action) to get compensation, help moving to safer areas, and support for losses and damages they suffer.

So far, courts have mostly focused on procedural and supervisory aspects.

They have not been very willing to create detailed programs that redistribute resources like job training or financial support, which are usually handled by lawmakers. However, courts have pushed for ensuring that vulnerable groups are considered in the planning and policy-making process. This puts more responsibility on the government to act properly when implementing these policies.

Doctrinal obstacles and evidentiary challenges

Courts often face several common difficulties:

Separation of powers and political question concerns.[14]

Many courts limit their remedies to avoid getting involved in policy decisions, instead favouring supervisory or declaratory actions. Appellate courts usually focus on ensuring democratic accountability when it comes to major economic changes. Cases like Juliana and parts of the Shell appellate history show the tension that arises in such situations.

Causation and attribution.

Climate-related harms are spread out and build up over time, making it hard to prove that a specific government action caused a particular harm. Courts handle this by using probabilistic and systemic approaches, and by focusing on whether policies are sufficient rather than trying to trace individual causes.

Diversity in domestic law.[15]

The success of litigation depends a lot on the national constitution, laws, and rules about who can bring a case. Jurisdictions with clear environmental rights, detailed climate laws, or flexible rules about standing are more favourable for legal action.

Policy and legal reform proposals

To make climate commitments more enforceable and fairer, this article suggests six changes:

Making science-based targets part of the law. Governments should set national goals that match IPCC guidelines and the Paris Agreement, and these plans should be able to be reviewed by courts to ensure they are sufficient.
Requiring fairness checks in all climate plans. Every national strategy to cut emissions or adapt to climate change must include mandatory fairness assessments and public reporting to make sure the needs of disadvantaged groups are considered first.
Setting up independent climate watchdogs. Create legal roles for independent officials with the power to investigate and report, and if governments don’t act, these officials can push for faster court action. This model follows the approach used by Leghari.[16]
Giving more rights to sue. Laws should make it easier for civil society and affected people to take legal action in the public interest, while still keeping strong rules to stop baseless lawsuits.
Creating clear rules for holding companies accountable. Update laws to require companies to assess and publicly share their plans for transitioning to a cleaner future, and to report their emissions. Also, set up legal ways to hold companies responsible if their actions clearly harm human rights.
Setting up systems for funding and compensation for loss and damage. Countries should create domestic systems or special funds for climate adaptation that local communities can access directly, ensuring support for those most affected by climate change.

Conclusion

Courts have become key players in turning international promises and scientific research into legal duties that governments must follow.

The court rulings show two main trends: judges are more open to recognizing responsibilities related to climate change, based on rights, care obligations, and the public trust. At the same time, judges are becoming more practical in how they design solutions, using tools like supervision orders, assessing the adequacy of plans, and setting up oversight systems. Environmental justice covering how processes are fair, how benefits and burdens are shared, and how wrongs are fixed must be at the heart of any legal system dealing with climate change if the shift to a greener future is to be fair for everyone. Therefore, reformers should focus on a combination of approaches clarifying laws with clear goals and fairness rules, creating strong oversight bodies, and continuing legal actions to ensure accountability when political systems don’t act.