Beyond London’s Eye
As I sit in this quaint pub, nestled against the long stretch of beach that embraces The Hague, I’m reminded of the remarkable convergence of history and duty that defines this place. A setting where international justice and diplomacy play out in courtrooms of profound consequence, shaping the global landscape we all occupy. It’s hard not to notice the presence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), each one brimming with questions about accountability and the exercise of power.
Though I am here to reconnect with friends, it is impossible for me to separate this moment from the work that has defined my last decade—work that oscillates between the trenches of human rights advocacy and the urgent frontlines of climate justice. From the war on drugs (former President Duterte, after all, is currently detained in the city) to the climate crisis, the questions asked here are often the same: What responsibility do we have for the harm inflicted upon others, and how far must we go to remedy it? These courts serve as arenas for humanity’s most pressing questions, but they are not just legal institutions; they are the mirrors in which we confront the choices we have made, the ones we continue to make, and the futures we are shaping.
Climate litigation: a decade hence
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the only international court that decides general disputes between and among nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. Unlike judicial decisions, advisory opinions are not legally binding, but hold much weight.When it comes to climate issues, the Advisory Opinion request spearheaded by Vanuatu is the first of its kind. In2023, it led a global coalition to adopt a UN General Assembly Resolution asking the ICJ to clarify State obligations and legal consequences related to climate change. In the latter part of 2024, over 100 countries, international organisations, and civil society forwarded their submissions and presented at the oral arguments, and the Advisory Opinion is expected to be released later this year.
This is just one of the most recent updates on climate litigation internationally, one that began in the 1980s in Australia and the US, but only really came to prominence in 2015 after the Paris Agreement was negotiated in COP21.[1] Other global developments took place around the same time, including Richard Heede’s Carbon Majors Report, the emerging field of attribution science, and the emergence of transnational movements that aremostly civil society-led whose aims are to hold governments and the private sector accountable for the climate crisis.
In 2013, Supertyphoon Yolanda (international name Haiyan) ravaged the Philippines and left in its wake hundreds of thousands of upturned lives and destroyed communities. In 2015, survivors of Yolanda went to the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and asked the Commission for clarity on how climate change is related to the frequency and severity of disasters that are experienced by the Filipino people and how their human rights are being affected as a consequence. A novel inquiry of its kind, the petition sought to include the so-called Carbon Majors into one “global petition,” seeking an understanding on their liability amidst the climate crisis. Seven years and hundreds of documents later, the Commission on Human Rights released the National Inquiry on Climate Change. Among its findings is the reality of climate change, its anthropogenic dimension, and the fact that climate change has adverse impacts on human rights in general, and of the human rights of Filipinos in particular. It also added that business enterprises have the responsibility to respect human rights and framed this responsibility in the context of an ever-warming world. While a quasi-judicial agency and therefore with no power to create legally binding pronouncements, the CHR was able to set powerful precedence, opening the door for litigation against corporations who have contributed substantially to the worsening of the climate crisis.
Where now?: Prospects, challenges, and opportunities for climate litigation
Since 2015, more climate-related cases have beenfiled. They have been broadly categorised into three: country ambition and commitments (whether country policies are aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement), corporate liability (seeking recourse from corporations for damages caused by their operations), and corporate emissions (demanding that corporations lower their current and future emissions so as to be aligned with country directives). These categories represent abroadening of the scope of climate justice, as individuals, organizations, andnations push for accountability on multiple fronts.
In parallel with broadened strategies are broadened litigant bases, both spatially and temporally. While much of the cases being filed are filed in the Global North, increasing initiatives are being made so that Global South litigants can also hold to account erring corporations and countries. These include the case of Luciano Lliuya v RWE and Asmaniav Holcim. In these cases, a Peruvian farmer and residents of the threatened Pari island in Indonesia take to court RWE, a German giant energy utilities company and Holcim, a Swiss-based major buildings materials company. These current cases show that increasingly, individuals and groups from the Global South are participating in the global litigation process, and rightfully so. After all, while they contribute the least to the climate crisis, it is the people from the Global South that experience firsthand and with great intensity the effects of its impacts.
Temporally, while children and youth are often plaintiffs in these climate cases, such as the cases of Sacchiet al v. Argentina et al. and Neubauerv Germany, where children and youth plaintiffs claimed that government in action on climate change had violated their constitutional fundamental rights, increasingly other sectors are filing cases. Just recently, the case of KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland was decided, where the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Switzerland’s refusal to take necessary steps to combat global climate change violated the human rights of the plaintiff, an association which currently represents over 2,500 women aged 64 and over.
Clearly, therefore, climate litigation is increasingly becoming a popular recourse to seek corporations and countries liable for climatic harm. However, despite this progress, these new avenues for litigation come with their own set of challenges.
For the Global South more broadly, but the Philippines particularly, a country exposed to the most detrimental effects of climate change, climate litigation remains to be inaccessible to many individuals, as access to justice remains to be difficult. A pervasive culture of impunity, especially against land and environmental defenders, makes the filing of cases difficult, as does the tendency of corporations and state parties to file Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits, which aim to intimidate, harass, and financially drain litigants. The goal of these suits is to make legal action so expensive and time-consuming that litigants are forced to abandon their cases.
Another issue is the increasing reliance of courts on science in climate litigation. While science is critical in establishing the links between corporate activities and climate harm, access to the necessary data and research remains uneven. The Global South, for instance, often lacks access to groundbreaking scientific research, most of which is produced in the Global North and is usually in English—creating both a logistical and financial barrier. Furthermore, indigenous knowledge, which offers valuable insights into environmental stewardship, is often not given the same weight as the natural sciences when presented as evidence in court. Indigenous knowledge is not just an alternative source of information, but often represents a different worldview on environmental care and climate repair.
The ManilaObservatory and LVZ’s roles in climate litigation
It is in these spaces particularly that ManilaObservatory and LVZ can work in filling the gaps.
The Manila Observatory, with its deep-rooted expertise in environmental science, and LVZ, with its dedication to upholding indigenous peoples’ rights and climate justice, are uniquely positioned to bridge the gaps in both the legal and scientific landscapes of climate litigation. The critical role of indigenous knowledge, often marginalized intraditional legal frameworks, can be better incorporated into legal strategies with the support of both MO’s scientific rigor and LVZ’s advocacy for the rights of these communities. By collaborating with indigenous groups, they can empower these communities to bring their voices and wisdom into the courtroom, presenting a more holistic understanding of environmental stewardship alongside cutting-edge science.
LVZ, with its legal expertise, can provide essential guidance in navigating the complexities of climate litigation, helping to overcome barriers such as the use of SLAPP suits and the financial burden that often deters marginalized communities from seeking justice. Furthermore, LVZ’s commitment to fighting for human rights in the context of the climate crisis ensures that vulnerable groups, particularly from the Global South, are not left behind in the global fight for climate justice.
Together, the Manila Observatory and LVZ have the opportunity to reshape climate litigation in the Philippines and beyond into a more inclusive and effective tool for accountability, one that combines scientific research, indigenous wisdom, and human rights advocacy to tackle the climate crisis.
Our work could be pivotal in ensuring that the legal system recognises and upholds the rights of those who have contributed the least to the crisis but suffer its consequences most acutely. In this way, we can help pave the way for a more just and sustainable future, where the power of the law is harnessed not only to seek justice for the present but to protect the rights of future generations.
[1] It is relevant to note that because it is a very new field of law, there remains plenty of discussion until now about what climate litigation means, and what itnormally entails.
