What is happening?

On December 2, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began hearings on a landmark climate case, the largest in its history, with over 100 states participating. The case seeks an advisory opinion on whether states can be held legally accountable for historic greenhouse gas emissions causing “significant harm.” While non-binding for individual states, the ICJ’s ruling will be binding for 100 UN bodies and carry significant legal and political weight, potentially reshaping international climate governance (Carbon Brief).  

Why does this matter? Climate litigation has surged globally, encompassing cases on human rights violations, government inaction, greenwashing, and corporate liability. Studies show that companies facing climate lawsuits see an average stock value drop of 0.41% following adverse rulings, adding financial repercussions to reputational risks. For Rio Tinto, which operates in environmentally sensitive sectors, the implications of this growing trend could lead to heightened regulatory scrutiny and consumer expectations.  

Historic accountability for emissions

The ICJ hearings centre on whether international law holds states accountable for historic emissions. Major emitters like the US, China, and Russia argue that obligations under treaties such as the 1992 Rio Convention preclude further legal culpability. They assert that these treaties, including subsequent agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, are the sole framework for addressing climate obligations.  

Conversely, nations like Vanuatu, Mauritius, and Chile contend that treaty regimes do not override broader principles of international law, such as human rights, due diligence, and the duty to prevent harm. The court will consider whether historic emissions carry ongoing liability and whether broader legal principles, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, apply.  

South Africa bans new coal power

In South Africa, the High Court upheld a ban on procuring new coal-fired power due to public health risks and environmental impacts. The government’s plan to secure 1,500MW of new coal energy was challenged by environmental groups, leading Judge C.J. van der Westhuizen to rule that reliance on coal violates constitutional rights to health. South Africa’s status as the most carbon-intensive G20 economy further showed the ruling’s significance, demonstrating the power of national courts to counter government energy policies.  

Energy giant sued by community

On a local scale, in Carrboro, North Carolina, a lawsuit has been filed against utility giant Duke Energy, accusing the company of a decades-long misinformation campaign about climate change. The town alleges that Duke intentionally misled the public and policymakers, despite knowing the dangers of climate change. This grassroots case highlights the growing role of local communities in leveraging legal mechanisms to demand accountability from corporations.  

The ongoing role of climate litigation

Climate litigation is becoming a powerful tool for addressing environmental harm across international, national, and local scales. From historic ICJ hearings to grassroots lawsuits, these cases reflect a broader movement to hold governments and corporations accountable. They also raise critical questions: How far does liability for past actions extend, and what role should law play in climate governance? For industries, adapting to this shifting landscape is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative.