What it is
Since March 2021, our global team of legal researchers have skillfully researched, selected, and analysed a collection of legal decisions ranging a number of topics, jurisdictions, precedents, or persuasive authorities.
Each one has been chosen because it has the potential to be seen through a climate migration ‘lens’. The resulting summaries are stored in this database.
Why it’s necessary
To show the overlaps of various legal issues and potentially enforceable rights that could apply to communities facing displacement as the result of climate factors.
In this way, we are expanding the mindsets of law students and practitioners alike, and setting the foundation for future climate migration litigation.
How it works
The database is in the format of a search engine. You can simply type in a case name to see whether or not we have addressed it.
Or, you have the option to use Advanced Search to click a variety of categorisations; from country, to area of law (e.g., Immigration, Constitutional, etc), to topic (e.g., right to life, refugee rights, environmental racism, children’s rights, etc) and see what related cases arise.
Case summaries can be viewed as a web page, or downloaded in PDF format, and the original judgement will always be linked.
Latest:
- Daniel Billy et al. v AustraliaThe indigenous minority group of four low-lying islands in the Torres Strait region, one of the most vulnerable populations to climate change impacts, filed a petition against the Australian government alleging a violation of articles 2, 6, 17, 24 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) due to Australia’s failure to implement measures for mitigation and adaptation to climate change, threatening habitability on the islands and displacement of the Torres Strait Islanders. In finding a violation of articles 17 and 27, the Committee requires Australia to make full reparation to individuals, providing adequate compensation, engaging in meaningful consultation with affected communities for assessment and continue implementing strategies for the safe existence of the islands and their inhabitants.
- UK Government v. Friends of the EarthThe High Court found that the UK’s net zero strategy is in violation of the Climate Change Act 2008, as it does not meet Government obligations to produce detailed climate policies evidencing how the UK will meet its legally-binding climate budgets.
- PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Climate Fund) Brazil’s Supreme Court became the first in the world to recognize the Paris Agreement as legally equivalent to a human rights treaty which supersedes national law. The Court ordered the Brazilian government to reactivate its Climate Fund, holding that not abiding by its national climate policy constitutes a breach of the Federal Constitution, which requires the State to protect the environment for current and future generations.
- West Virginia v. EPA Conservative states and coal companies challenged potential rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency which could phase out electricity generation from coal-fired power plants in the United States. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with petitioners, holding that the Clean Air Act does not permit such extensive regulations. As a result, it is now significantly more difficult for the federal government to limit carbon emissions absent new legislation from Congress.
- Minister for the Environment v Sharma [2022] FCAFCIn May 2021, The Australian Federal Court found that the Federal Environment Minister has a novel duty of care to prevent harm to young people as a result of climate change. After the Australian government’s appeal, the Full Federal Court now unanimously holds that the Minister for Environment of Australia does not owe a duty of care to Australian children to avoid causing personal injury or death.
- Herrera Carrion v. Ministry of the Environment (Mecheros Case)The Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos stated that the Ecuadorian state disregarded the entitlement of nine girls to reside in a wholesome environment and infringed upon their right to health by failing to offer clean technologies to prevent pollution.
- Sanchez v. MayorkasThe U.S. Supreme Court foreclosed a pathway to permanent residency for certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients. TPS is commonly used to allow nationals of countries experiencing environmental disasters to temporarily live and work in the United States.
- Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560The Australian Federal Court found that the Federal Environment Minister has a novel duty of care to prevent harm to young people as a result of climate change. Despite this finding, the Court did not issue an injunction to prevent the Australian government from extending a coal mine.
- City of New York v. Chevron Corp. New York City sued the five largest producers of fossil fuels for contributing to climate change under state tort law. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the suit, holding that state common law claims to redress greenhouse gas emissions are displaced by federal common law, which in turn is displaced by the Clean Air Act.
- Bundesverfassungsgericht, Order 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 288/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 78/20In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court classified the German Climate Protection Act in its current form as violative of fundamental rights because it disproportionately shifts the burden of greenhouse gas reduction to future generations, thereby recognising for the first time the existence and violation of the intertemporal dimension of their civil rights.
- I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona This case established that Italian trial judges should collectively assess situations of environmental, social or climate degradation in humanitarian asylum cases, including whether natural resources are subject to unsustainable exploitation in the country of origin of the individual seeking refuge. The specific matter was remanded to a lower court.
- CAA de Bordeaux, 2ème chambre, 20BX02193, 20BX02195In this judgement, the Court overturned the deportation order issued by the French department, Prefect of Haute-Garonne (“Prefect”), against Mr. Sheel on the grounds that it would subject him to a real risk of harm and even death given the high levels of air pollution in Bangladesh and the lack of access to adequate health care services, medication, and respiratory assistance equipment.
- Ioane Teitiota decision, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016In its first ruling on a complaint by an individual seeking asylum from the effects of climate change, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that states may not deport individuals who face climate change-induced conditions that violate the right to life.
- Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. The Government of Ireland & Ors. The Supreme Court of Ireland quashed the government’s National Mitigation Plan to reduce carbon emissions, stating that the Plan was ambiguous in how it would achieve the “national transition objective”, an obligation undertaken by the Irish Government under the Climate Action and Low-Carbon Development Act 2015.
- Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14The court introduced the concept of binding environmental impact assessments (EIAs) into international environmental laws and further elaborated upon the provisions of the International Law Commission’s draft, as well as the Trail Smelter decision.