Strategies and limitations to climate-health litigation in the Global South: A thematic analysis
1
Wits Planetary Health Research Division, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
2
Public Health & Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):A3370
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
When climate change policies have been ineffective in ameliorating consequences for human lives, litigation based on the health impacts of climate change introduces a novel route to justice. Although widely used in the US and Australia, this tool has recently gained traction in the Global South—where populations have historically made the lowest contributions to greenhouse gas emissions but are most affected by climate change. Litigators in this region face unique burdens which hamper their effective use of this tool. With limited scholarly attention on this region, overcoming barriers to adjudication remains challenging.
METHODS:
We located all climate-health cases to date in the Global South region through searches on ECOLEX, the Sabin Centre and the Grantham Research Institutes climate litigation databases. Thematic analysis of petitions, judgements, and evidence was undertaken to review the nature of cases, explore limitations faced in court, and deduce pathways for impactful litigation.
RESULTS:
A total of 60 cases filed against state actors were identified. Case documents were mostly derived from South American jurisdictions and show an increase in frequency since 2015. Three legal strategies were identified: 1) A duty to Act, intending to seek liability from the state; 2) An evidence-based strategy, providing scientific-support for attributing human suffering to anthropogenic climate change; 3) A vulnerability-based approach, emphasizing those most susceptible to harm from climate change. Systemic and political limitations identified include inability to establish standing, insufficient evidence, and courts lacking resources. Strategies to overcome these barriers were identified through analysis of an impactful case.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our study highlights how bridging science and law can advance visibility of health harms resulting from climate change and strengthen policies to mitigate these harms. Litigants must consider the legal culture, evidence availability and desired impact when choosing the most compelling legal strategy and addressing procedural limitations.
When climate change policies have been ineffective in ameliorating consequences for human lives, litigation based on the health impacts of climate change introduces a novel route to justice. Although widely used in the US and Australia, this tool has recently gained traction in the Global South—where populations have historically made the lowest contributions to greenhouse gas emissions but are most affected by climate change. Litigators in this region face unique burdens which hamper their effective use of this tool. With limited scholarly attention on this region, overcoming barriers to adjudication remains challenging.
METHODS:
We located all climate-health cases to date in the Global South region through searches on ECOLEX, the Sabin Centre and the Grantham Research Institutes climate litigation databases. Thematic analysis of petitions, judgements, and evidence was undertaken to review the nature of cases, explore limitations faced in court, and deduce pathways for impactful litigation.
RESULTS:
A total of 60 cases filed against state actors were identified. Case documents were mostly derived from South American jurisdictions and show an increase in frequency since 2015. Three legal strategies were identified: 1) A duty to Act, intending to seek liability from the state; 2) An evidence-based strategy, providing scientific-support for attributing human suffering to anthropogenic climate change; 3) A vulnerability-based approach, emphasizing those most susceptible to harm from climate change. Systemic and political limitations identified include inability to establish standing, insufficient evidence, and courts lacking resources. Strategies to overcome these barriers were identified through analysis of an impactful case.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our study highlights how bridging science and law can advance visibility of health harms resulting from climate change and strengthen policies to mitigate these harms. Litigants must consider the legal culture, evidence availability and desired impact when choosing the most compelling legal strategy and addressing procedural limitations.
| eISSN: | 2654-1459 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
