Can litigation assist in implementing the outcome of the global stocktake?

Abstract

Rising global temperatures and concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are reaching record highs. The consequences being reported globally are becoming increasingly severe. At the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) in 2021, the parties to the Paris Agreement agreed on the terms of a global stocktake mechanism to periodically assess the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the achievement of the agreement’s long-term goals. The outcome of the global stocktake will be a finding of whether insufficient progress has been made in achieving the long-terms goals of the Paris Agreement and mitigating climate change. This article explores the ways in which the outcome of the global stocktake can inform parties’ actions under the Paris Agreement and be used in climate litigation. The outcome of the global stocktake may be able to be used in litigation in four ways: first, to enforce a party’s obligations under the Paris Agreement; second, to enforce relevant resolutions of the COP; third, to implement the principle of solidarity; and fourth, to use a factual assessment of the parties’ progress in achieving the Paris Agreement to establish insufficiency. This article examines these four ways that litigation might assist in implementing the outcome of the global stocktake.

Keywords:

• global stocktake mechanism
• Paris Agreement
• climate litigation
• enforcement of obligations
• principle of solidarity
• factual assessment

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the considerable assistance of Anasha Flintoff, Researcher and Tipstaff to the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of NSW for 2022, in the research and writing of the article. This article is based on a paper presented to the Global Stocktake and International Law: Paradigm, Process and Ambition Conference, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom, 22–23 June 2023.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 World Meteorological Organization, ‘WMO Provisional State of the Global Climate 2022’ (WMO, 2022) https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11359 3, 4 accessed 21 August 2023 . The final WMO State of the Global Climate report was released in April 2023: World Meterological Organization, 'WMO State of the Global Climate 2022' (WMO, 21 April 2023) <https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11593> accessed 21 August 2023

2 Ibid

3 Ibid

4 Ibid 3

5 Earth Science Communications Team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ‘Graphic: The Relentless Rise of Carbon Dioxide’ (Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet, 10 November 2022) <https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/> accessed 22 August 2023

6 World Meteorological Organization, ‘WMO Provisional State of the Global Climate 2022’ (n 1), 8, 9

7 Ibid 12–13

8 Ibid 11

9 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Eight Warmest Years on Record Witness Upsurge in Climate Change Impacts’ (WMO Press Release, 6 November 2022) <https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/eight-warmest-years-record-witness-upsurge-climate-change-impacts> accessed 22 August 2023

10 World Meteorological Organization (n 1) 16

11 Ibid 18

12 Ibid 19

13 World Meteorological Organization, ‘Preliminary Data Shows Hottest Week on Record. Unprecedented Sea Surface Temperatures and Antarctic Sea Ice Loss’ (WMO Press Release, 10 July 2023) <https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/preliminary-data-shows-hottest-week-record-unprecedented-sea-surface-temperatures-and>

14 António Guterres, ‘Secretary-General’s Remarks to Press Prior to the Security Council Meeting on Peace Operations’ (United Nations Secretary-General Press Statement, 3 November 2022) <www.un.org/sg/en/content/dsg/press-encounter/2022-11-03/secretary-generals-remarks-press-prior-the-security-council-meeting-peace-operations> accessed 22 August 2023

15 Climate Analytics and NewClimate Institute, ‘Temperatures’ (Climate Action Tracker, 11 November 2022) <https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/> accessed 22 August 2023

16 Ibid

17 Ibid

18 Climate Analytics and NewClimate Institute, ‘CAT Emissions Gap’ (Climate Action Tracker, 10 November 2022) <https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-emissions-gaps/> accessed 22 August 2023

19 Petra Minnerop, ‘Taking the Paris Agreement Forward: Continuous Strategic Decision-Making on Climate Action by the Meeting of the Parties’ (2018) 21(1) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 124

20 Brian J Preston, ‘The Influence of the Paris Agreement on Climate Litigation: Legal Obligations and Norms (Part I)’ (2021) 33(1) Journal of Environmental Law 1, at 6

21 Ibid

22 [2017] 2 All SA 519 (High Court)

23 Ibid [89]

24 Ibid [91]

25 Ibid [90]

26 [2018] NZLR 160 (High Court)

27 Ibid [179]

28 Ibid [102]

29 Ibid [101]

30 Preston, ‘The Influence of the Paris Agreement’ (n 20) 10

31 (2019) 234 LGERA 257

32 Ibid [440]

33 Ibid [439]–[450]; Lesley Hughes, ‘The Rocky Hill Decision: A Watershed for Climate Change Action?’ (2019) 37 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 3, at 341, 347

34 See Condition B32, IPC, ‘United Wambo Open Cut Coal Mine Project (SSD 7142)’ (Development consent, 29 August 2019) <www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/projects/2018/11/united-wambo-open-cut-coal-mine-project-ssd-7142/determination/ssd-7142-recommended-conditions-of-consent-final.pdf> accessed 28 October 2022

35 Ibid

36 (2021) 250 LGERA 39

37 Ibid [65], [174]–[177]

38 [2022] QLC 21

39 Ibid [1809], [1941]

40 Ibid [695]

41 Ibid [779]

42 [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin)

43 Section 4 of the CCA imposed a duty on the SoS to set an amount for the UK’s carbon budget.

44 Ibid [139]

45 Ibid [177], [193]

46 Ibid [194]–[222]

47 Ibid [223]–[260]

48 Ibid [245], [247]

49 Order of Holgate J in R (on the Application of Friends of the Earth) et al v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (UK High Court, CO/126/2022, CO/163/2022, CO/199/2022, 18 July 2022) Order 6

50 Ibid Order 12, [9]–[16] (Holgate J’s reasons)

51 Judgment No 14A 101/2021, Municipal Court of Prague, 15 June 2022 (unofficial English translation). Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, ‘Klimatická žaloba ČR v Czech Republic’ (Climate Case Chart, 2022) <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/klimaticka-zaloba-cr-v-czech-republic/> accessed 22 August 2023

52 Ibid [328]

53 Ibid [248], [250]

54 Ibid [251], [259]

55 Ibid [274], [280], [281], [328]

56 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337 (court-issued English translation)

57 Ibid [4.1.4]

58 Ibid [4.4.26]

59 Petra Minnerop, ‘Taking the Paris Agreement Forward’ (n 19) 124

60 Ibid

61 Ibid 164

62 Ibid 131–32

63 Ibid 150

64 Ibid 150

65 Ibid 129, 150

66 Ibid 129

67 Ibid 129, 130, 150

68 Ibid

69 Ibid 150–51

70 Ibid 152

71 Ibid 153

72 Ibid 132

73 International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties, with Commentaries, 70th sess, UN Doc A/73/10 (2018). Minnerop refers to the 2016 version of the ILC’s draft conclusions in her article ‘Taking the Paris Agreement Forward’ (n 60) 152.

74 International Law Commission (n 73) 82

75 Ibid 89

76 Ibid

77 Ibid

78 Ibid

79 [2022] QLC 21 [765]; United Nations, ‘COP26: Together for Our Planet’ (United Nations Climate Action n.d.) <www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26>

80 Judgment No 14A 101/2021, Municipal Court of Prague, 15 June 2022 (unofficial English translation) [264]

81 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, ‘Warsaw UN Climate Talks: Time for Concrete and Fair Funding Pledges, UN Expert on International Solidarity Urges’ (United Nations Press Release, 15 November 2013) <www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2013/11/warsaw-un-climate-talks-time-concrete-and-fair-funding-pledges-un-expert> accessed 22 August 2023

82 António Guterres, ‘Secretary-General’s Remarks to High-Level Opening of COP27’ (United Nations Secretary-General Press Statement, 7 November 2022) <www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2022-11-07/secretary-generals-remarks-high-level-opening-of-cop27> accessed 22 August 2023

83 Ibid

84 Lavanya Rajamani and others, ‘National ‘Fair Shares’ in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Within the Principled Framework of International Environmental Law’ (2021) 21(3) Climate Policy 983, at 984; Climate Analytics and NewClimate Institute, ‘Fair Share’ (Climate Action Tracker, September 2021) <https://climateactiontracker.org/methodology/cat-rating-methodology/fair-share/> accessed 22 August 2023

85 As will be discussed shortly, the courts’ reasoning in the Urgenda litigation could also be said to uphold solidarity among peers and solidarity among nations, as the courts held that the Netherlands was required to match the climate ambition and action of similarly developed countries in the EU, as well as other countries. The Urgenda litigation accordingly demonstrates how different manifestations of solidarity can influence the reasoning of courts in overlapping ways when deciding climate cases.

86 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145

87 Ibid [4.90], [4.93]

88 Ibid [4.78]

89 Ibid

90 Ibid

91 Ibid [4.79]

92 ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610

93 Ibid [15]

94 Ibid [62]

95 ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007

96 Ibid [5.72]–[5.75]

97 Ibid [7.2.11]

98 Ibid [7.3.6]

99 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145 [4.79]

100 ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610 [60]

101 (2021) 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20 (official English translation)

102 Ibid [202]–[204]

103 See Will Donaldson, ‘The Meaning of “Fair Share” in Climate Ambition Litigation under the Paris Agreement’ (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Climate Law Blog Commentary, 29 September 2022) <https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2022/09/29/guest-commentary-the-meaning-of-fair-share-in-climate-ambition-litigation-under-the-paris-agreement/> accessed 22 August 2023

104 Do-Hyun Kim et al v South Korea (South Korean Constitutional Court, Complaint filed 13 March 2020) (unofficial English translation). Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, ‘Do-Hyun Kim et al. v South Korea’ Climate Case Chart (Web Page, 2022) <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kim-yujin-et-al-v-south-korea/>

105 Do-Hyun Kim et al v South Korea (South Korean Constitutional Court, Supplemental Complaint filed 15 May 2020) 59 (unofficial English translation)

106 Ibid

107 See eg Urgenda II ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610 [57], [60], [72]

108 Judgment No 14A 101/2021, Municipal Court of Prague, 15 June 2022 (unofficial English translation)

109 Ibid [251], [259]

110 (2019) 234 LGERA 257

111 Ibid [525]

112 Ibid [539]. See for example, Article 4(4) of the Paris Agreement and also Urgenda Foundation v The State of Netherlands [Urgenda I] at [4.79].

113 Ibid [540]

114 Ibid [538]–[545]

115 See Justine Bell-James and Briana Collins, ‘If We Don’t Mine Coal, Someone Else Will: Debunking the Market Substitution Assumption in Queensland Climate Change Litigation’ (2020) 37(2) Environmental and Planning Law Journal 167

116 [2022] QLC 21 [32], [788], [1011], [1027], [1393]. The market substitution argument, also known as the perfect substitution argument, was previously a major barrier to climate litigation in Queensland.

117 UN Climate Press Release, ‘COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New “Loss and Damage” Fund for Vulnerable Countries’ (United Nations Climate Change, 20 November 2022) <https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries> accessed 22 August 2023

118 Ibid

119 António Guterres, ‘Statement by the Secretary-General at the conclusion of COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh’ (United Nations Secretary-General Press Statement, 19 November 2022) <www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2022-11-19/statement-the-secretary-general-the-conclusion-of-cop27%C2%A0-sharm-el-sheikh%C2%A0%C2%A0> accessed 22 August 2023

120 [2022] QLC 21 [680]

121 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337 (court-issued English translation) [4.4.52]

122 (2021) 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20 (official English translation) [182], [183], [186], [187], [192], [193], [194], [195]; see Petra Minnerop, ‘The “Advance Interference-Like Effect” of Climate Targets: Fundamental Rights, Intergenerational Equity and the German Federal Constitutional Court’ (2022) 34(1) Journal of Environmental Law 135

123 Ibid [192]

124 Ibid [183]

125 Ibid

126 Ibid Order 4; [253]

127 Ibid [1938]; see also [1836]–[1845], [1847]

128 Ibid [1603]; see also [1588], [1594], [1648], [1651]

129 (2013) 194 LGERA 347 [490]; see also the cases referred to in Justice Brian J Preston, ‘What’s Equity Got to Do with the Environment?’ (2018) 92(4) Australian Law Journal 257, at 269–72

130 (2013) 194 LGERA 347 [505]–[510], [519]–[524], [537], [539]; see Jacqueline Peel, ‘The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales and the Transnationalisation of Climate Law: The Case of Gloucester Resources v Minister for Planning’ in Elizabeth Fisher and Brian Preston (eds), An Environmental Court in Action: Function, Doctrine and Process (Hart 2022) 73, 90, for further discussion of the contribution of Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning to the transnationalisation of climate law

131 In NSW, see Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21; Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc v Minister for Water, Property and Housing [2022] NSWLEC 69; Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd (2021) 252 LGERA 221; Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc v Environment Protection Authority (2021) 250 LGERA 1; KEPCO Bylong Australia Pty Ltd v Independent Planning Commission (No 2) (2020) 247 LGERA 130; Statewide Planning Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1397; Visionary Investment Group Pty Ltd v Wollongong City Council [2019] NSWLEC 1234; Australian Coal Alliance Inc v Wyong Coal Pty Ltd [2019] NSWLEC 31; in Canada, see References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act [2021] SCC 11; and in the UK, see R (on the application of Finch) v Surrey County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 187; R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for International Trade [2022] EWHC 568 (Admin)

132 [2022] QLC 21 [1354]

133 Rajamani and others (n 84) 991–92

134 International Bar Association Climate Change Justice and Human Rights Task Force, Model Statute for Proceedings Challenging Government Failure to Act on Climate Change (Report, February 2020) 21; see eg The Full Federal Court of Australia’s decision in Minister for the Environment v Sharma (2022) 291 FCR 311; [2022] FCAFC 35 did not contest the primary judge’s findings of fact on climate change and the dangers it poses to the world and humanity

135 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘About the IPCC’ (IPCC, 2022) <www.ipcc.ch/about/> accessed 22 August 2023

136 Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind, GA Res 43/53, UN GAOR, 43^rd sess, 70th plen mtg, UN Doc A/RES/43/53 (6 December 1988)

137 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘History of the IPCC’ (IPCC, 2022) <www.ipcc.ch/about/history/> accessed 22 August 2023

138 In response to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the IPCC also prepared a Special Report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels: see IPCC, ‘2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (Special Report, 6 October 2018)

139 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, (IPCC, 2023) <www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/> accessed 22 August 2023

140 International Bar Association Climate Change Justice and Human Rights Task Force (n 134) 21

141 ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610 [4.12]

142 [2018] 2 NZLR 160; [2017] NZHC 733 [133]

143 Ibid [94]

144 Ibid [91]

145 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337 [4.4.27]

146 (2021) 250 LGERA 1

147 Ibid [69]

148 [2022] QLC 21 [721], [725]–[780]; see also [617], [624]

149 International Bar Association Climate Change Justice and Human Rights Task Force (n 134) [6.1]

150 Ibid [6.2]

151 Federal Court of Australia, File No VID622/2021, Statement of Claim filed 22 October 2021. The case is listed for a lay evidence hearing commencing on 6 June 2023 and for an expert evidence hearing likely to be held in October or November 2023

152 Ibid 7–8

153 Ibid 26–33

154 Ibid

155 Ibid 30–31

156 Preston, ‘The Influence of the Paris Agreement’ (n 20) 21

157 ‘[T]he current central estimate of the remaining carbon budget from 2020 onwards for limiting warming to 1.5°C with a probability of 50% has been assessed as 500 GtCO₂, and as 1150 GtCO2 for a probability of 67% for limiting warming to 2°C’: see IPCC, ‘Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers’ (Report, 4 April 2022) [B.1.3]

158 Preston, ‘The Influence of the Paris Agreement’ (n 20) 20

159 ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610 [3.5]

160 Ibid

161 Ibid [44], [71]

162 ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 [7.4.6]

163 Ibid [8.34]–[8.35]

164 (2019) 234 LGERA 257 [441]–[450], [527], [550], [551]

165 Ibid [441]

166 Ibid [527]

167 Ibid [552]

168 Ibid [553]

169 Ibid

170 Ibid [554]

171 Ibid [556]

172 Borgarting Court of Appeal, Case No 18-060499ASD-BORG/03, 23 January 2020 (unofficial English translation)

173 Ibid 22

174 Ibid 5, 6, 23, 24

175 Ibid 5, 24

176 Ibid 24

177 Ibid

178 Ibid 24–25

179 Ibid 27

180 Ibid

181 Ibid 31

182 Greenpeace Nordic and others v Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (Supreme Court of Norway, Case No 20-051052SIV-HRET, 22 December 2020). On 15 June 2021, the plaintiffs referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights: see Greenpeace Nordic and others v Norway (European Court of Human Rights, Application No 34068/21, Application filed 15 June 2021); see Christina Voigt, ‘The First Climate Judgment before the Norwegian Supreme Court: Aligning Law with Politics’ (2021) 33(3) Journal of Environmental Law 697

183 [2022] QLC 21 [30]

184 Ibid [31]

185 Ibid [31], [35], [1409], [1793], [1937]

186 Ibid [1409]

187 Ibid [1796]; see also [22]–[23], in which the Land Court noted that ‘[t]he evidence is clear that, globally, we are struggling to achieve [the Paris Agreement’s temperature] goal’.

188 Ecodefense et al v Russia (The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Complaint filed 11 September 2022). Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, ‘Ecodefense & Other NGOs v. Russia’ (Climate Case Chart, 2022) <http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ecodefense-other-ngos-v-russia/>

189 Ibid [17], [92]

190 Ibid [91]

191 Ibid [95]

192 Ibid [114]

193 Climate attribution science involves estimating how much more probable an extreme weather event was made by anthropogenic climate change. See Petra Minnerop and Friederike Otto, ‘Climate Change and Causation: Joining Law and Climate Science on the Basis of Formal Logic’ (2020) 27(1) Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 49; Sophie Marjanac and Lindene Patton, ‘Extreme Weather Event Attribution Science and Climate Change Litigation: An Essential Step in the Casual Chain?’ (2018) 36(3) Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 265

194 Ibid

195 Ibid