ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND CLIMATE LITIGATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW JURISDICTIONS

Abstract

Environmental justice and climate litigation have become crucial mechanisms for addressing the urgent challenges posed by climate change. This study provides a comparative analysis of how common law and civil law jurisdictions approach environmental protection and climate accountability. In common law systems, litigation primarily relies on judicial precedents, tort law, and human rights frameworks to compel governments and corporations to act responsibly. In contrast, civil law jurisdictions emphasize codified statutes, administrative regulations, and regulatory enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with environmental obligations.

The study highlights the challenges faced by both legal traditions, including balancing economic development with ecological preservation, safeguarding intergenerational equity, and providing access to justice for communities disproportionately affected by climate change. Despite differences in approach, both systems increasingly recognize the courts’ role in shaping public policy, advancing environmental justice, and holding stakeholders accountable for environmental harms.

This comparative analysis concludes that integrating the flexible, precedent-driven mechanisms of common law with the structured statutory frameworks of civil law can strengthen climate governance, promote sustainability, and enhance the effectiveness of environmental justice. Future reforms should focus on improving legal accessibility, fostering cross-jurisdictional learning, and developing harmonized strategies to address transboundary environmental challenges.