Category: Indigenous peoples’ rights

Categories
2019 Domestic court Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Kenya Participation rights

Amu Power Company Ltd v Save Lamu & Others

Summary:
This case concerns a coal-fired power plant project conceived as part of the Kenyan development blueprint: Kenya Vision 2030. The Kenyan government determined that the 1050 MW power plant would be set up in Kwasasi (near Lamu Port). Amu Power Company Ltd. (Amu Power) won the bid for the project. Subsequently on 7 September 2016, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) granted Amu Power the requisite license based on the Environmental & Social Impact Assessment study (ESIA) commissioned by the latter. Immediately thereafter, environmental groups and local community representatives challenged the license before the National Environment Tribunal (NET), naming both NEMA and Amu Power as the respondent parties.

On 26 June 2019, the NET delivered a decision wherein found fundamental deficiencies in public participation and noted the witness for Amu Power’s admission of the failure to consider climate impacts of the project in the ESIA study. It thus found the NEMA to have violated its statutory duty to ensure project’s compliance with the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 2009 read together with the Environmental Impact Assessment & Audit Regulations (EIA Regulations) and therefore cancelled the license.

Further, it recommended that Amu Power conduct a fresh ESIA study, including consideration of the Climate Change Act 2016 and compliance with all statutory requirements, should it wish to pursue the construction and operation of the project.

Amu Power challenged this decision by way of an appeal before the High Court of Malindi. On 25 October 2025, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the NET’s 2019 decision ordering a cancellation of the license.

Claims:
The objectors contended that the operation of the plant would negatively impact the area’s air quality, contribute to climate change to such an extent that its operation would be contrary to Kenya’s National Climate Change Action Plan and Climate Change Act No. 11 of 2016, as well as Nationally Determined Contribution submitted to the UNFCCC which focuses on renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Further, they argued the effluent discharge from the plant would impact marine biodiversity, potentially increasing seawater temperature by 9°C, which could infringe upon the rights of Lamu residents dependent on fishing, thus interfering with their their cultural rights and traditional way of life a set out in Article 44 and 43 of the Constitution. These contentions were meant to contextualize the crux of the case brought by the objectors, which concerned administrative failure. The objectors invoked the lack of effective public participation, inadequacies in the ESIA study, especially as it related to the plant’s impacts on human health, mitigation of environmental impacts and the failure to consider impacts on climate change, as grounds for cancellation of the license. 

Amu Power argued that the project would displace a much higher amount of carbon dioxide than what could be generated by it, as electricity would be available to users at the lowest rates, also alluded to the added benefits revolving around climate change adaptation measures. It noted that the ESIA study sufficiently addresses the impacts of thermal effluents on the marine environment and local air pollution by also considering the appropriate the mitigation measures. Regarding climate change, Amu Power submitted that the Paris Agreement came into force on 4th November 2016 after the ESIA study had been concluded and the licence was issued. Lastly, Amu Power argued that the NET placed undue emphasis on procedural rather than the substance, i.e. the spirit behind public participation; and that in any case the flaws in the process were not significant enough to deprive the public participation process of its efficacy.

Judgment of the High Court of Malindi:
In its 2019 judgment, the High Court of Malindi re-affirmed the NET’s findings that the license was issued based on a fundamentally flawed public participation process. The Court emphasized the significance of these findings on the basis of the constitutional significance accorded to public participation. Article 10(1) of the Constitution provides those national values and principles of governance, which includes ‘participation of the people’ bind all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons when applying or interpreting the Constitution, enacting or interpreting any law, or making or implementing public policy decisions. Article 69(1)(d) requires the State to encourage public participation in the management, protection and conservation of the environment.

It further added that the findings regarding inadequate public participation are of over-arching significance, in that even if the NET had erred in assessing the ESIA’s consideration of mitigation measures concerning the treatment of effluents and climate change, as unsatisfactory, “the project and the study remain condemned due to insufficient public participation” (para. 179).

Links:

  • For the full judgment National Environmental Tribunal, see here.
  • For full judgment of the High Court of Malindi on the appeal by Amu Power against the judgment of the National Environmental Tribunal, see here.

Suggested case citation:
Environment and Land Court at Malindi, Amu Power Company Ltd v Save Lamu & Others, ELCA No. 6 of 2019, 16 October 2019, Hon. Justice Mwangi Njoroge.

Last updated:
30 October 2025.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights New Zealand

Smith v. Fonterra

Summary:
This case was brought by Michael John Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu), who is the climate change spokesperson for a Māori development platform known as the Iwi Chairs’ Forum, and who is also the applicant in the case of Smith v. Attorney-General. In the present case, he brought proceedings against seven high-emitting companies in New Zealand who are involved in agriculture and energy sectors (namely Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd , Genesis Energy Ltd, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel Ltd, Z Energy Ltd, Channel Infrastructure NZ Ltd and BT Mining Ltd.). He claimed that the emissions caused by these corporate actors constituted a public nuisance, acts of negligence, and a breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change. The New Zealand courts have issued a series of decisions on this case.

On 6 March 2020, the High Court of New Zealand struck out the first two causes of action (public nuisance and acts of negligence), but allowed the third (reach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change) to proceed.

After, on 21 October 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Smith’s appeal and upheld the cross appeal of the respondents, Mr Smith received leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on 31 March 2022. On 7 February 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Smith’s appeal, and reinstated his statement of claim, and referred the case back to the High Court to proceed to trial (for more detail on the Supreme Court’s judgment, see below). After a series of procedural decisions, a substantive hearing in the case by the High Court was scheduled for April 2027.

Current state of the proceedings:
On 7 February 2024, the Supreme Court of New Zealand reinstated the two dismissed tort causes of action and remanded the case to the lower court (the High Court). It held that the public rights pleaded laid an appropriate foundation for a nuisance claim. It also held that it was premature, at this stage of the proceeding, to conclude that the common law was insufficient to address the tortious aspects of climate change. Determining whether the actions of respondents, seven high-emitting companies in New Zealand, amount to a ‘substantial and unreasonable interference’ to public rights is a fact inquiry to be analyzed according to policy factors and human rights obligations.

On remand, the interlocutory applications raised noteworthy cost questions. The sixth defendant, BT Mining, sought an order for security for costs and Mr. Smith applied for protected cost orders (PCO). Here, the court has a wide latitude of discretion. It dismisses BT Mining’s request citing, among other considerations, access to justice concerns. Regarding Mr. Smith however, the court relies on the Edwards factors: (1) whether an issue of significant general or public importance is raised; (2) whether the applicant’s stance is seriously arguable; (3) whether the applicant is genuinely impecunious; (4) the position of the respondent, including “any unjust advantage likely to accrue to it absent the order”; and (5) any reasonable alternatives to making the order.

Reluctant to grant, the court emphasized the exceptional nature of a PCO in these proceedings. Mr. Smith, however, draws on Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd (No 4), an Australian Federal Court decision that ordered nonparty funders, the Environmental Defense Office, to pay costs to Santos, an oil company who defeated claimants’ petition for injunctive relief in the construction of a pipeline, to remind the court of the significant chilling effect of potential costs exposure on charitable funders. The court draws a distinction between a third-party funder and a ‘pure funder’ to reason that it would be highly unlikely for a costs award to be made against one that did not seek to benefit financially from the litigation nor seek to control its course. Unsatisfactory, but absent disclosure of third-party donor(s), the court declines Mr. Smith’s PCO application in its entirety. The decision, however, is without prejudice, leaving the door open to re-application with third-party funder identification.

Suggested citation:
Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5, [2024] 1 NZLR 134.

Last updated:
19 September 2025.

Categories
Adaptation African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Business responsibility / corporate cases Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Climate activists and human rights defenders Climate-induced displacement Deforestation Disability and health-related inequality Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation Environmental racism Evidence Extreme poverty Farming Gender / women-led Human dignity Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Loss & damage Minority rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Participation rights Private and family life Prohibition of torture Renewable energy Right to a healthy environment Right to assembly and association Right to development and work Right to education Right to freedom of expression Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Right to subsistence/food Rights of nature Sea-level rise Self-determination Standing/admissibility Victim status Vulnerability

African Court on Human and People’s Rights Climate Advisory Opinion

Summary:
On 2 May 2025, a request for an advisory opinion on climate change was submitted to the African Court on Human and People’s Rights. The request was submitted by the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), in collaboration with the African Climate Platform, and other African Civil society Organizations including the Environmental Lawyers Collective for Africa, Natural Justice and resilient40, and seeks clarification of States’ obligations in the context of climate change.

Submitted under article 4 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights and Rule 82(1) of the Rules of the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, the request submits that “[a]cross the continent, Africans are suffering the consequences of climate change, whether from rising temperatures, unrelenting droughts, catastrophic floods, vanishing biodiversity, or threats to livelihoods. Climate change in Africa has had prior, current and will have future consequences that impact the enjoyment of numerous rights.”

The request sets out impacts, disaggregating them region-by-region and in terms of the groups of people most affected by climate change (mentioning women and girls, children, the elderly, Indigenous peoples, and environmental human rights defenders in particular).

The request then goes on to discuss several issues of law, beginning with issues of admissibility and jurisdiction and then relying on a wide range of rights and instruments, namely:

  • a) the Constitutive Act of the African Union
  • b) the African Charter for Human and Peoples Rights (‘Banjul Charter’), especially articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 60 and 61
  • c) African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention)
  • d) Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol)
  • e) The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
  • f) The Revised African Convention on Conservation of Nature
  • g) Any other Relevant Instrument.

In doing so, PALU invites the Court to consider international climate change law, including the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement as well as the UN Conventions on Combatting Desertification and on Biological Diversity.

Rights invoked in more detail:
PALU submits that “a rights-based climate approach is needed to address the challenges posed by climate change” and that the human rights framework “provides a robust legal framework upon which the Court may rely to define States’ responsibilities and duties in the context of climate change […] because the Charter clearly provides for collective rights and the explicit protection of the right to a healthy environment.” PALU accordingly invites the Court to consider the following provisions of the Banjul Charter:

  • Articles 2 and 3 (equality and non-discrimination)
  • Article 4 (right to life and inviolability of the human person)
  • Article 5 (right to respect for dignity and prohibition of all forms of exploitation and degradation, including slavery and torture)
  • Article 8 (freedom of conscience and religion)
  • Article 9 (freedom of information and opinion)
  • Article 10 (freedom of association)
  • Article 11 (freedom of assembly)
  • Article 12 (freedom of movement, residence and asylum; prohibition of mass expulsion)
  • Article 14 (right to property)
  • Article 16 (right to health)
  • Article 17 (right to education)
  • Article 18 (protection of the family, prohibition of age and gender discrimination)
  • Article 19 (equality of peoples, prohibition of domination)
  • Article 20 (right of peoples to existence and self-determination)
  • Article 21 (right of peoples to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources)
  • Article 22 (right of peoples to their economic, social and cultural development)
  • Article 23 (right of peoples to national and international peace and security)
  • Article 24 (right of all peoples to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development)
  • The request also discusses the implied rights to food and shelter.

Issues for determination:
PALU submits the following issues for determination by the Court (paraphrased):

(a) Whether the Court can be seized with the question of obligations concerning climate change under the Banjul Charter and other relevant instruments?

(b) Whether the Court can interpret and lay down applicable custom and treaty law regarding States’ obligations and duties in the context of climate change?

If these questions are resolved in the affirmative, the Court is invited to further determine:

(a) What, if any, are States’ human and peoples’ rights obligations to protect and safeguard the rights of individuals and peoples of the past (ancestral rights), and present and future generations?

(b) Whether States have positive obligations to protect vulnerable populations including environmental human rights defenders, indigenous communities, women, children, youth, future generations, the current generation, past generations, the elderly and people with disabilities from the impact of climate change in line with the relevant treaties?

(c) What human rights obligations do States have to facilitate a just, transparent, equitable and accountable transition in the context of climate change in Africa?

(d) What are the obligations of African States in implementing adaptation, resilience and mitigation measures in response to climate change?

(e) What, if any, are applicable human rights obligations of States to compensate for loss, damage and reparations?

(f) What responsibilities, if any, do African States have in relation to third parties, including international monopolies, multinational corporations and non-state actors operating on the continent, to ensure that international and regional treaties and laws on climate change are respected, protected, promoted and implemented?

(g) What, if any, is the nature of the obligations on African States to cooperate with other states especially historical emitters to limit global warming to below the 1.5°C threshold, to avert an existential climate crisis for present and future generations on the continent?

Further reading:
For more information on the advisory opinion request, see this post by Yusra Suedi.

Suggested citation:
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Request for an advisory opinion on the human rights obligations of African states in addressing the climate crisis, filed 2 May 2025 (pending).

Last updated:
23 May 2025

Categories
Brazil Class action Deforestation Domestic court Environmental racism Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Minority rights Non-discrimination Rights of nature

São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office v. São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP) et al.

Summary:
On 31 March 2014, the São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office brought a “Public Civil Action” against the São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP), the São Paulo State Foundation for Forest Conservation and Production (Fundação Florestal), and the State of São Paulo. The case sought annulment of the decision to protect biodiversity by creating a new State Park, the Alto Ribeira Tourist State Park (PETAR), despite the fact that the area in question overlapped with a traditional Quilombola territory, or a territory settled by Afro-Brazilian descendants of escaped slaves. The ruling highlights environmental racism as causing the marginalization of this community. The plaintiffs argued that the Quilombola are protectors of nature and have a relationship of mutual dependence with it and requested territorial recognition.

Ruling of 29 December 2023:
On 29 December 2023, a ruling was issued upholding the claim of the Quilombola community of Bombas and invalidating the decision to create the State Park to the extent that it overlapped with the Quilombola territory. The court established that it could review the conformity of domestic law against international human rights norms, finding also that ILO Convention 169 was hierarchically superior to domestic constitutional law. It also highlighted the difficulty of balancing the interests of the Quilombola community and PETAR, noting that both concerned internationally recognised human rights – the Quilombola community given its traditional customs, connection to nature and unique culture, and PETAR as a World Heritage Site at the heart of the Atlantic Rainforest that was home to a number of rare species of flora and fauna.

Exploring the issue of environmental racism, the court found that:

The Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) recently produced a series of reports recognising that the Bombas community is subject to environmental racism. The issue is linked in the sense that despite the abstraction and supposed generality of the law, when it is applied to a specific case in environmental terms, because it disregards original realities (the way of life of the traditional community from the way of life of the urbanised community), it imposes burdens that make survival almost unbearable, because it creates prohibitions that affect the subsistence of groups that feed themselves, sustain themselves, produce minimal income and extract essential elements for their maintenance from the environment. Not that this isn’t also the case in urbanised society, after all, there’s no denying that all consumer goods originate from materials that are exploited on a large scale in world production and that originate from nature, such as oil.

To say that there is a precise separation between humans and the environment, as well as that there is real protection, is in itself a huge contradiction. After all, we are all on a planet and making use of its resources (…).

Ultimately, the court found the decision establishing the Park to be incompatible with Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) and ILO Convention 169. Although the decision noted the problem of environmental racism, it found that the marginalization at stake stemmed from combined social, environmental, historical, and legal factors. It affirmed the relationship between traditional communities and the environment and the need to halt human impacts on natural ecosystems.

As noted by Climatecasechart, the original claim did not reference climate change; this connection was introduced judicially in the ruling of 2023.

On 5 March 2024, the São Paulo State Attorney General’s Office appealed. In doing so, it highlighted the threat of climate change and the importance of carbon sinks, such as the State Park in question.

Further information:
To read the full judgment in the case (in Portuguese), click here.

Last updated:
12 February 2025.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Uncategorized United States of America

Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska I

Summary:
In 2017, sixteen children and young people — including some who were members of Alaskan Indigenous peoples — filed suit against the U.S. State of Alaska arguing by the state’s climate and energy policy violated their constitutional rights. Because the policy in question authorized and facilitated activities producing greenhouse gas emissions, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their due process rights to life, liberty, and property under the Alaskan Constitution, as well as their right to a stable climate system. The argued that the state government and relevant agencies had, “knowingly and with deliberate indifference”, created a dangerous situation for them, in violation of their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs also made an equal protection claim and alleged a violation of Alaska’s public trust doctrine.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief. They sought a declaration that the state had a constitutional duty to protect their constitutional rights, as well as a duty under the public trust doctrine to protect Alaska’s waters, atmosphere, land, fish, wildlife, and other public trust resources. They sought a declaration that the state’s climate and energy policy had violated their rights and placed them “in a position of danger with deliberate indifference to their safety” and had “materially caused, contributed to, and/or exacerbated climate change and discriminated against Youth Plaintiffs as members of a protected class, and with respect to their fundamental rights”. They sought an order for the state to prepare a complete and accurate accounting of Alaska’s GHG emissions and an enforceable state climate recovery plan.

Alaska Superior Court Judgment:
On 30 October 2018, the Alaska Superior Court rejected the case, arguing that it was indistinguishable from previous climate cases based on the public trust doctrine and that it concerned political questions which were not justiciable. The plaintiffs appealed.

Alaska Supreme Court Judgment:
In 2022, on appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case (see full text of the judgment below). The Court found that the applicants’ claims concerned non-justiciable political questions and found that it could not make “the legislative policy judgments necessary to grant the requested injunctive relief.”

Judge Maassen, dissenting, argued that he was “no longer convinced that nothing can be gained by clarifying Alaskans’ constitutional rights and the State’s corresponding duties in the context of climate change”, and that the public trust doctrine under the Alaskan Constitution provided a right to a livable climate.

Additional developments:
A follow-up case, Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska II, was filed in 2022.

Sagoonick IDownload

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Alaska, Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska I, 28 January 2022, No. 3AN-17-09910 CI.

Last updated:
14 November 2024

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Minority rights New Zealand Paris Agreement Right to life Separation of powers

Smith v. Attorney General

Summary:
This case was filed in 2022 and concerns the same plaintiff as the Smith v. Fonterra corporate responsibility case. The plaintiff in these cases is a Māori landowner and spokesperson on climate change for his tribe (iwi). He argued that the climate policy of the New Zealand government had failed to adequately protect the citizens of New Zealand, and especially Māori, against the impacts of climate change. Before the High Court, he submitted that “the Government has taken no or inadequate climate change mitigation measures since it had become aware of the causes and effects of climate change down to the present.” In July 2022, the High Court struck out all of the applicant’s claims. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal on all counts in December 2024.

Claims made:
The plaintiff’s case is based on three main arguments (expanded from the original submissions, which concerned only the first argument of the three). First, the plaintiff argues that the government breached its common law duty of care to “take all necessary steps to reduce NZ emissions and to actively protect the plaintiff and his descendants from the adverse effects of climate change”, as derived from its authority over the territory of New Zealand, the government’s duty of care, and its responsibility to Māori. Secondly, he alleged a breach of the rights enshrined in sections 8 and 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), concerning deprivation of life and the denial of the right to practise culture. Here the plaintiff argued that the Crown had “failed to put in place an effective legislative and administrative framework properly designed to provide effective mitigation against the climate change risk in accordance with the best available science and New Zealand’s international and domestic legal obligations.” He invoked the protection of his own life, those of his tribe and clan, and those of future generations. Thirdly, he argued that the government had violated the Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, and the consequent fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and those he represents.

Finding of the High Court:
In July 2022, the High Court struck out all three claims. First, it found that the plaintiff’s arguments about the common law duty of care were not based on recognized legal obligations or case-law. It was also considered too far-reaching: “any relief, if it were available, would be an ineffective and piecemeal way to deal with climate change issues. Every person in New Zealand would be entitled to sue the Government under the novel duty.” It noted too that “the courts have neither the technical capacity nor the political mandate to co-ordinate in an integrated way to mitigate the effects of climate change”.

On the second argument, the Court found that the right to life claim was untenable because the plaintiff had not demonstrated a “‘real and identifiable’ risk to the life of a specified individual or even a class of individuals. It is a general threat that may eventuate as a result of the effects of climate change to all New Zealanders.” In addition, the Court was not convinced that it was possible to draw analogies to Dutch law, and specifically the Urgenda case invoked by the plaintiff, meaning that “[t]he decision in Urgenda must be treated with caution”.

Furthermore, on the minority rights claim, the Court held that the plaintiff had not alleged specific breaches of that right, which only entailed positive obligations under exceptional circumstances. It also held that the plaintiff’s case was “based on a claim that an existing legislative and policy framework is inadequate to protect Māori. There is no allegation of opposition or coercion targeting Māori that fits within that exceptional category here.” Accordingly, this part of the case was also declared inadmissible.

Finally, concerning the Tiriti o Waitangi, the Court found that this claim was so broad, and climate change was so complex, that “any fiduciary obligations arising from the Crown would be owed to the public in general. This alone makes the claim untenable”. To be contemplated, such a claim would depend on an underlying duty — here, the duty of care invoked by the applicant — which had already been rejected above, making this claim untenable. In addition, the Court held, “a claim that such a duty is owed to only a subsection of New Zealanders, Māori, as opposed to the public in general, is a further reason that it cannot be tenable”.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:
On 19 December 2024, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling in this case, rejecting the applicant’s appeal on all counts.

On the claim concerning the right to life, the court considered six questions: 
           a)  whether that right includes a right to a life with dignity;
           b)  whether the widespread nature of (climate) effects preclude the applicability of the right to life;
           c)  whether the risks from climate change are sufficiently proximate;
           d)  whether the right to life can impose positive duties on the State;
           e)  whether it is tenable that New Zealand’s regulatory framework breached the right to life; and
           f)  whether reporting orders are tenably available.

On the first question, it found that it was not clearly untenable that the right to life includes a right to a minimum baseline as to the quality of life and is therefore applicable to the potential impacts of climate change.  This, it held, is consistent with international jurisprudence. Throughout, it extensively engaged with international jurisprudence (Billy, Teitiota) and soft-law materials (the HRC’s General comment No 36).

On the second question, the Court found that it was not clearly untenable on the grounds that the alleged risk to life potentially affects a large group or all of the population.   

On the third question, again referring to international climate jurisprudence on equivalent rights, and particularly engaging with the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, the Court found that this would be a matter of (scientific) evidence for trial, and that it could accordingly not strike this out at this stage. 

On the fourth question, the Court found – given the context of the climate emergency and the case-law from around the world responding to this challenge — it was not clearly untenable that NZBORA’s right to life requires the government to take protective measures against foreseeable threats to life. 

On the fifth question, on the challenge to the efficacy of the legislative framework responding to climate change, the Court found that it could not second-guess parliamentary policy choices, striking out this claim while referring to the possibility of judicial review of concrete actions taken under the legislative framework.

On the sixth question, it found that the court’s institutional role did not encompass an ongoing monitoring role of the measures the Crown is implementing in response to climate change.

On the right to culture, the court found that it was not clearly untenable that climate change could give rise to a positive obligation to protect against a denial of the right to culture under s20 of NZBORA where a substantial interference amounting to a denial of the right occurs. However, here too the court found that the pleaded deficiencies of the domestic legal framework reflect policy choices that are for Parliament and that it could not review.

As concerns the claim of a breach of te Tiriti, the court found that this was clearly untenable because the domestic legislative framework gives effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty and allows for decisions consistent with Treaty principles.

As concerns the claim that the Crown owes fiduciary duties to Mr Smith, his whānau, Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu, the court found that the claimed fiduciary duty was not comparable to specific fiduciary duties arising between the government and certain Māori due to particular dealings between them.  As a result, the pleaded claim was inconsistent with the nature of fiduciary duties because the response to climate change required a balancing of interests and the government could not act purely in the interests of the pleaded beneficiaries. 

As concerned the claim that there was a novel common law duty in place, relying on the common law public trust doctrine, this doctrine stemmed from the context of access to seashores and navigable waters and was thus too far removed from the extensive duty pleaded in relation to climate change.  The court found that the boundaries of the public trust doctrine are imprecise and fluid, raising a host of conceptual problems in imposing fiduciary or trust-like obligations on the government, and that the doctrine could in any case be displaced by legislation; domestic law did not leave room for its application.

Status of the case:
Appeal to the Court of Appeal rejected 19 December 2024.

Further reading:
The text of the High Court ruling is available here.

The text of the Court of Appeal ruling is available here.

Suggested citation:
High Court of New Zealand, Smith v. Attorney General, [2022] NZHC 1693.

Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Smith v. Attorney General, [2024] NZCA 692.

Categories
Climate activists and human rights defenders Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Finland Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to water Rights of nature Vulnerability

Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others v. Finland

Summary:

In August 2024, a coalition of six Finnish environmental and human rights organizations, including the Finnish Sámi Youth, filed a lawsuit against the Finnish government at the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. The lawsuit accuses the government, led by Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, of failing to meet the commitments outlined in Finland’s 2022 Climate Act, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. The plaintiffs argue that the government’s insufficient actions, particularly in the areas of forestry, agriculture, and transportation, threaten both environmental sustainability and the rights of the Sámi people, who are disproportionately affected by climate change.

The case builds on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim on procedural grounds, and a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the Klimaseniorinnen case, where the Strasbourg Court found that Switzerland’s failure to adequately address climate change constituted a violation of human rights.

Claim:

The plaintiffs claim that the Finnish government’s inadequate climate policies are not only a breach of the nation’s own laws but also a violation of human rights. Specifically, they argue that the government is failing to protect the Sámi people’s rights to maintain their culture, livelihood, and environment. They demand that the government implement stronger measures to meet its climate targets, thus safeguarding both the environment and the rights of the Sámi as an indigenous people.

Significance:

The significance of this case is multifaceted. Firstly, it represents a critical intersection between environmental law and human rights, specifically the rights of indigenous peoples, highlighting how climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. Secondly, this case is notable for invoking international legal standards, such as those set by the ECHR, in a national context. The outcome could therefore have implications beyond Finland, contributing to the growing body of climate litigation worldwide that seeks to hold governments accountable for their environmental commitments. Finally, the case highlights the increasingly active role of civil society in enforcing climate laws and protecting the rights of vulnerable populations in the face of global climate change.

Ruling in the case:

In January 2025, it was reported that the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland had turned down the complaint, emphasizing the need for more time to conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of current policies and the impossibility of ex ante assessments.

Links:

The related documents are accessible here, here, here, and here.

Suggested case citation:

Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others v Finland (pending, Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, 2024).

Last updated:
12 February 2025

Categories
Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health South Korea

Kang et al. v KSURE and KEXIM

Summary:
In March 2022, four individuals, including one Korean national and three Australian nationals from the indigenous community of the Tiwi Islands, filed a complaint before the Seoul District Court. The complaint specifically targets two public Korean debtor corporations—Korea Trade Insurance Corporation and Korea Export Import Bank—by challenging their financial support for the Barossa gas field development project. This fossil gas reserve initiative, led by SK E&S Co., Ltd. (a South Korean conglomerate), Santos Ltd. (an Australian oil and gas corporation), and Jera Co. (Japan’s largest power company), is located off the coast of Australia’s Northern Territory, near the Tiwi Islands. The applicants oppose the project, highlighting potential irreversible environmental, legal, and financial risks. The plaintiffs argue that endorsing the Barossa Gas Project would violate their constitutional rights to health and a healthy living environment. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from supporting the project.

Claim:
The claim underscores the environmental risks associated with the Barossa Gas Project, projecting an annual emission of 15Mt of CO2 and potential harm to the marine ecosystem, including endangered sea turtles, and indigenous communities. Legal risks involve insufficient consultation with indigenous communities and a potential dispute over control of the gas field given its location within the Indonesian exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Financial risks are tied to the project’s inconsistency with climate goals, an anticipated decline in fossil gas demand, and underdeveloped carbon capture and storage technologies. The plaintiffs base their claim on constitutional environmental rights, Tiwi Islanders’ property rights, and the South Korean National Finance Act. They emphasise the deficiencies in the consultation and assessment processes for the proposed Barossa pipeline in a habitat protection zone near the Tiwi Islands. The central issue revolves around whether the Tiwi Islanders were adequately consulted and if environmental and climate impacts were sufficiently assessed for the Barossa project.

Links:
The complaint is accessible for download below (in the original Korean).

20220323_16485_petitionDownload

Status of the case:
Pending.

Suggested citation:
Kang et al. v. KSURE and KEXIM (South Korea, Seoul District Court), pending case filed on 23 March 2022.

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court France Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health

Envol Vert et al. v Casino

Summary:

This case revolves around the nexus of climate change and human rights abuses. Various NGOs, representing the plaintiffs, initiated legal proceedings in March 2021 against the French supermarket giant, Casino. The allegations stem from the company’s activities in the cattle industry in Brazil and Colombia, facilitated through its subsidiaries Grupo Pão de Açúcar and Grupo Éxito. Despite Casino’s commitment to eradicating deforestation and complying with Brazilian national law, the lawsuit contends that the corporation is culpable for environmental degradation, human rights violations, and threats to human health and safety in the mentioned regions. Specific accusations include biodiversity loss, depletion of carbon stocks, land seizures, violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights, and instances of slavery and forced labor. The plaintiffs argue that Casino’s vigilance plans, mandated by the French duty of vigilance law, lack substance and are insufficient. Consequently, they seek court orders compelling Casino to establish and implement a comprehensive vigilance plan, along with compensating Brazilian Indigenous groups for damages resulting from the company’s failure to fulfil its duty of vigilance.

Claim:

The plaintiffs assert that Casino, through its operations in the cattle industry in Brazil and Colombia, is responsible for environmental harm, human rights violations (including land seizures, violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights, slavery, and forced labor), and threats to human health and safety. They contend that Casino’s vigilance plans, mandated by the French duty of vigilance law, lack substance. Seeking legal intervention, the plaintiffs aim to compel Casino to establish and implement a comprehensive vigilance plan, identifying risks arising from the group’s activities. Additionally, they request compensation for Brazilian Indigenous groups, arguing that Casino’s failure to uphold its duty of vigilance resulted in the loss of opportunity and moral damage. Casino rebuts these claims, asserting that its vigilance plan aligns with legal requirements and deeming the plaintiffs’ requested measures unreasonable under the duty of vigilance law. The core issue involves determining whether Casino violated the French duty of vigilance law through its involvement in cattle-industry-induced deforestation.

Links:

The case document can be found below.

20210302_13435_complaintDownload

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the French Saint-Étienne Judicial Court.

Suggested citation:

Envol Vert et al v Casino (Saint-Étienne Judicial Court), filed 2 March 2021.

Last updated:

11 December 2023.

Categories
Adaptation Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Indigenous peoples' rights Kenya Loss & damage Non-discrimination Right to life Right to property

Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v. Attorney General and 7 Others (Iten ELC Petition No. 007 of 2022)

Summary:
In 2022, a case was filed in Kenya on behalf of members of indigenous Ilchamus and Tugen communities living on the shores of Lake Baringo. Due to flooding, Lake Baringo has doubled in size since 2010. The plaintiffs assert that, as residents of the area, they are victims of climate change-related flooding, which in turn has caused displacement, deaths and harm to property. The petitioners allege violations of their constitutional human rights as well as violations of the Kenyan government’s duties under the domestic Climate Change Act. Drawing on a 2021 government report that identified climate change as the main cause of flooding in the area, the plaintiffs seek to — in the words of their lead attorney, Omondi Owino, “enforce the climate change duties of public officials”.

The petitioners’ motion for the Supreme Court of Kenya to create a three-judge Environment and Land Court (ELC) panel to hear the case was allowed. A hearing in the case — which alleges that government officials “failed, refused, or neglected” to “anticipate, prevent, or minimize” the impacts of climate change — was held on 24 October 2023 at the ELC in Iten. Government lawyers have reportedly contested the claims and the plaintiffs’ claims for damages, arguing that Kenya’s contribution to global climate change is minimal.

Suggested citation:
Environment and Land Court (ELC) of Iten, Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v. Attorney General and 7 Others, Petition No. 007 of 2022.