KnE Social Sciences

Published date: Oct 29 2025

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The 8th Legal International Conference and Studies (LICS 2025): Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into National & International Legislation—Harmonizing Knowledge

Pages: 1 - 25

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v10i26.19977

Hee-Moon Johmoon@hufs.ac.krLaw School, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

This article examines the rise of rights-based climate change litigation as a transformative legal strategy across diverse jurisdictions. It introduces a threefold typology—human rights-based, rights of nature-based, and indigenous or hybrid claims—and analyzes how each approach draws on constitutional, international, and customary legal sources. Through comparative analysis of landmark cases from the Netherlands, Colombia, Ecuador, the United States, the Philippines, and regional courts, the study demonstrates how courts are recognizing new rights-holders, expanding doctrines such as proportionality, the precautionary principle, and intergenerational equity. This study has comparatively examined how rights-based strategies are deployed across jurisdictions, classifying them into three primary forms: human rights-based, rights of nature-based, and Indigenous or hybrid claims. Each approach brings distinct legal arguments, normative strengths, and practical challenges. Human rights-based litigation is bolstered by established legal doctrines and judicial familiarity but often struggles with causation and procedural thresholds. Rights of nature litigation offers a paradigm shift toward ecological justice but requires supportive constitutional frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. Indigenous and hybrid claims deepen legal pluralism and cultural legitimacy, yet often face systemic barriers to recognition and implementation. The article argues that rights-based litigation is not only reshaping climate governance but also redefining legal subjectivity and state accountability. It contributes to the development of transnational environmental law by offering an integrated framework for evaluating the legal coherence, strategic potential, and normative implications of rights-based climate claims.

Keywords: environment, hybrid, nature, transformation

[1] Cullinan C. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Green Books; 2011.

[2] Craig M Kauffman and Pamela L Martin. The Politics of Rights of Nature. MIT Press; 2021.

[3] Boyd D. The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World. ECW Press; 2017.

[4] David R. Boyd, The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment. UBC Press; 2012.

[5] Gilio-Whitaker D. As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice. Beacon Press; 2019.

[6] Dinah Shelton, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: What Specific Environmental Rights Have Been Recognized?’ 2007;35 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 129.

[7] Ituarte-Lima, Claudia. Biosphere Defenders Leveraging the Human Right to Healthy Environment for Transformative Change. Environmental Policy and Law, 2023; 53(2- 3), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-239003. (Original work published 2023)

[8] Peel J, Lin J. Transnational Climate Litigation: The Contribution of the Global South. Am J Int Law. 2019;113(4):679–726.

[9] James R May and Erin Daly. Global Environmental Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press; 2015.

[10] Setzer J, Higham C. Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2021 Snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment; 2021.

[11] Freeman J, Guzman A. Climate Change and U.S. Interests. Columbia Law Rev. 2009;109(7):1531–74.

[12] Knox J. Framework Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/59 (2018).

[13] Jonathan Verschuuren, ‘The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: The Role of the Precautionary Principle in Human Rights-Based Climate Litigation’ (2021) 30(2) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 192.

[14] Sax JL. The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention. Mich Law Rev. 1970;68(3):471–566.

[15] Kauffman CM, Martin PL. Constructing Rights of Nature Norms in the US, Ecuador, and New Zealand. Glob Environ Polit. 2018;18(4):43–62.

[16] Rajamani L. The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-Based Perspectives in the International Negotiations on Climate Change. J Environ Law. 2010;22(3):391– 429.

[17] Mary Christina Wood, Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age (CUP 2014).

[18] Burger M, Gundlach J. The Status of Climate Change Litigation: A Global Review, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School & UN Environment, May 2017 (2017). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sabin_climate_change/98

[19] Philippines Commission on Human Rights. National Inquiry on Climate Change: Final Report (2022).

[20] Savaresi, Annalisa and Hartmann, Jacques, Using Human Rights Law to Address the Impacts of Climate Change: Early Reflections on the Carbon Majors Inquiry (November 2, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108777810.005.,

[21] Berry T. The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. Random House; 1999.

[22] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment, with a special focus on climate change (22 August 2023) UN Doc CRC/C/GC/26.

[23] UN Human Rights Committee. Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2728/2016 (7 January 2020) UN Doc CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016.

[24] UN Human Rights Committee. Views adopted by the Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2728/2016 (7 January 2020) UN Doc CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016.

[25] United Nations, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (2011).

[26] Constitutional Court of Colombia, T-622/2016 (Atrato River Case). Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Judgment No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Los Cedros Case). Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States, Application no. 39371/20 (Communicated case, ECtHR, pending). Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP).

[27] European Court of Human Rights, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, App No 48939/99 (2004).

[28] Future Generations v Ministry of Environment (2018), Colombian Supreme Court, STC4360-2018.

[29] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (15 November 2017) Series A No 23.

[30] Juliana v United States 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020)

[31] Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

[32] Paris Agreement (2015), UNFCCC.

[33] Philippines Commission on Human Rights, Carbon Majors Petition (2015–2022).

[34] South Africa High Court, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs [2017] 2 All SA 519 (GP).

[35] Supreme Court of Colombia, Future Generations v. Ministry of Environment (STC4360-2018).

[36] UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 26 on Children’s Rights and the Environment, 2023.

[37] UN Human Rights Committee, Teitiota v. New Zealand, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 (2020).

[38] United Nations General Assembly, The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, A/RES/76/300, 2022.

[39] Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands (2019) Supreme Court of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:HR:2019.