Shristi Gautam

Document Type

Research Project

Publication Date

Fall 9-28-2025

Abstract

The international governance of climate change has historically been led by political institutions operating under multilateral frameworks, such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Under these frameworks, the mitigation ambition and implementation of NDCs remain subject to state discretion, with no binding consequences for non-compliance, creating an enduring enforcement deficit. The paper examines the increasing judicialization of climate governance as a means of addressing this deficit, positioning the judiciary as an active enforcer rather than a passive adjudicator. Drawing on Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Leghari v. Pakistan, Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell, and the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion, the paper identifies a necessary trend shifting from national jurisdictions toward judicial intervention in global climate policy. It further discusses challenges to this approach, including politicization, disparities in enforcement capacity, legal asymmetry, and normative fragmentation. Based on these findings, the paper proposes nice structural reforms, primarily in relation to: (a) codification of enforceable climate obligations; (b) establishment of an International Climate Compliance Tribunal; (c) expansion of standing for civil society actors; and (d) institutionalization of corporate climate liability mechanisms. These measures are argued to close the enforcement gap left by political institutions and embed the rule of law in climate governance.

Download

Share

COinS