Category: Indigenous peoples’ rights

Categories
Adaptation Biodiversity Finland Human Rights Committee Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Loss & damage Minority rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to culture Self-determination

Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative v. Finland

Summary:
On 24 June 2025, a communication was brought before the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) against Finland by 33 members of the Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative (MPLK), an indigenous Sámi community in northern Finland. The MPLK has practiced nature-based traditional herding techniques in Northern Finland for centuries, and this practice is a core part of Sámi culture.

The communication alleges multiple breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), namely Articles 27 (right to enjoy one’s culture), 26 (non-discrimination), 17 (privacy and family life), and 1 (self-determination). It alleges that the Finnish State violated these rights in light of the impacts of climate change and forestry on Sámi traditional practices, given its failures to support and compensate the herding communities during recent exceptional winters, when the loss of lichen-rich old-growth forests and changes to snow conditions have impacted reindeer food sources.

The communication draws on the HRC’s earlier Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia Views, where it found that Australia had failed to discharge its positive obligation to implement adequate adaptation measures to protect the authors’ home, private life and family, and found a violation of Article 17 ICCPR.

Status of the case:
Pending.

More information:
Case documents in this case have not been made available. A summary of the communication has been provided by the applicants’ counsel.

Suggested citation:
UN Human Rights Committee, Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative v. Finland, Communication filed 24 June 2025.

Last updated:
25 August 2026.

Categories
2026 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Participation rights Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture South Africa

Sustaining the Wild Coast v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, South Africa

Summary:
On 14 August 2026, the Constitutional Court of South Africa issued a ruling concerning climate change, human rights, environmental protection, cultural rights, economic development, and sustainable development in the Sustaining the Wild Coast case.

The immediate question before the Constitutional Court concerned the appropriate remedy following unlawful administrative action. However, the judgment has broader constitutional significance. At issue is the Wild Coast, a roughly 250-kilometre stretch of coastline in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa with exceptional ecological, cultural, and economic importance. The area supports customary fishing practices, spiritual practices, and the livelihoods of coastal communities, while also providing habitat for endangered marine and bird species. The area enjoys protection as a recognised protected area in terms of South African national environmental management laws.

In 2013, Impact Africa applied for and was granted an exploration right to undertake seismic exploration for oil and gas. This right was renewed in 2017 and 2021. In 2021, Shell acquired a 50% participating interest in the exploration right. Shell then announced its intention to undertake a 3D seismic survey along the Wild Coast. The seismic survey involved the use of airguns to generate soundwaves directed towards the seabed in order to identify possible oil and gas deposits.

The applicants in this case, who are both non-governmental organizations and individuals, approached the High Court to prevent the respondents from conducting the seismic survey and set aside the decisions granting the exploration. The matter was heard in the High Court, which ordered an interdict preventing the seismic survey from proceeding pending review proceedings. The respondents then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which set aside the High Court’s order pending the application for the renewal of the exploration right. The applicants then appealed to the apex Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court situated the dispute within the interconnected relationship between people, the environment, and socio-economic development. In doing so, it considered the constitutional environmental right in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; the rights of affected communities to participate in decisions affecting them; cultural and spiritual rights; dignity; livelihoods; intergenerational equity; and the state’s responsibilities in the context of climate change.

The environmental right in section 24 requires decision-makers to look beyond immediate consequences and consider future environmental conditions: it ‘requires an educated peek into the future with all the attendant uncertainties to safeguard the environment for those who will come after us’. The Court rejected an understanding of environmental protection and economic development as mutually exclusive, and warned against reducing cultural, spiritual, and environmental interests to interests that simply compete with economic development on equal terms. The Court stressed that economic development cannot be pursued without having regard to environmental consequences, while environmental protection cannot automatically prevent all forms of economic activity.

The Court clarified that this approach is relevant to climate change in that fossil-fuel development presents an obvious tension between economic development and environmental protection. This is because extraction may provide economic opportunities while contributing to greenhouse-gas emissions and potentially increasing long-term climate risks. In this regard, it noted that

In the context of extractive industries, the enquiry cannot be reduced to a formal balancing exercise that treats cultural, religious, spiritual and environmental concerns as merely competing interests against economic development. It is also ahistorical to place these interests on equal footing, given the long history of dispossession and marginalisation of coastal communities whose relationships with land and sea have often been subordinated to commercial extraction. Although job creation is a legitimate consideration, it cannot be assumed to be inherently beneficial without asking who receives those jobs, how secure they are and what social, ecological and cultural costs the affected communities are expected to bear. In this context, the communities’ constitutionally enshrined and protected rights are given practical force through procedural duties of meaningful consultation, participation and respect for their cultural and spiritual relationship with the environment. A just and equitable remedy should therefore not allow speculative or corporation-centred economic benefits to outweigh procedural justice where communities’ livelihoods, cultural identity and environmental interests are directly at stake (para. 132).

The judgment does not establish an absolute constitutional prohibition on fossil-fuel development. Instead, it requires these development decisions to be made within a lawful framework that properly considers environmental and climate consequences. The Court therefore understood environmental degradation, often caused by climate change, as potentially producing a cascade of human rights consequences. To this end, the Court permanently terminated Shell’s exploration rights and closed any renewal routes.

This case establishes a broader constitutional vision in which environmental decision-making must account for climate change, scientific uncertainty, community rights, cultural identity, dignity, and the interests of future generations. In this respect, the case strengthens the foundation for a rights-based approach to climate change action in South Africa. This case reaffirms that sustainable development requires genuine integration of environmental protection, human rights and socio-economic interests rather than the prioritisation of one at the expense of others.

Full text of the judgment:
The full text of the judgment is available for download below.

Sustaining the Wild Coast CaseDownload

Date of Decision:
14 August 2026.

Status:
Decided.

Suggested Citation:
Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others; Natural Justice and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others [2026] ZACC 33.

Credits:
This database entry was contributed by Michaela O’Donoghue, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Categories
2025 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to development and work Right to health Sea-level rise South Africa

Green Connection NPC and Another v. Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others

Summary:
On 13 August 2025, the Western Cape High Court (South Afria) delivered a judgment in a successful judicial review application that was brought by two public interest organisations, Green Connection NPC and Natural Justice, against the decisions to grant environmental authorisation to TotalEnergies and Shell for offshore oil and gas exploration drilling in Block 5/6/7, an area which is approximately 10,000km² off South Africa’s South-West coast between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas. The court upheld five of the six grounds of review and declared the decisions unlawful, remitting the matter to the Director-General (“the DG”) of the South African Department of Mineral Resources and Energy,  for reconsideration.

The review application concerned the granting of an environmental authorisation (“the EA”) to TotalEnergies and Shell in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), for the purpose of conducting exploration drilling to determine whether geological structures contain oil or gas – fossil fuels – in potentially extractable amounts. The application for an EA was lodged with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and it was granted by its DG on 17 April 2023. On 24 September 2023, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment dismissed the applicants’ internal joint appeal against the DG’s decision.

More details on the challenge:
Total and its co-venture partners, Shell and PetroSA, are co-holders of Exploration Right 12/3/224, granted under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 for Block 5/6/7. The block is situated 60-170km offshore at water depths of 700 and 3,200m. Following seismic surveys, Total sought to drill one exploration well and up to four additional wells.

The EA application triggered listed activities under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2014. Total commissioned technical modelling (drilling discharges, oil spill, underwater noise) and specialist studies (marine ecology, fisheries, socio-economic, cultural heritage, climate change). The Petroleum Agency SA reviewed the studies and recommended an approval. The DG granted the EA on 17 April 2023. The Minister dismissed an internal appeal on 24 September 2023, prompting the review application.

Rights at Stake:

  • Section 24(a) of the Constitution, the right to an environment not harmful to health or well-being.
  • Section 24(b) of the Constitution, the right to have the environment protected through reasonable measures preventing pollution and ecological degradation, promoting conservation, and securing ecologically sustainable development.
  • Interests of the whole community in coastal public property, including future generations and other living organisms dependent on the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008 (“ICMA”).
  • Rights of small-scale fishers and coastal communities to livelihood and cultural practices.

Claim:
The applicants’ review challenged the final environmental and social impact assessment report (“Final EIR”) prepared on behalf of TotalEnergies and the review grounds may be summarised as follows:

(a) Firstly, the Final EIR failed to properly assess and the state respondents failed to properly consider the socio-economic impact of the proposed project because it did not assess the socio-economic impact which a well blowout and consequent oil spill may cause on the fishing industry and small-scale fishers.

(b) Secondly, the decision-makers failed to consider the factors prescribed by ICMA.

(c) Thirdly, the Final EIR failed to assess and the state respondents failed properly to consider the need and desirability of the proposed project because no consideration was given to the climate change impacts which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project.

(d) Fourthly, the Final EIR failed to assess and the state respondents failed to consider the transboundary impacts of the proposed project, both on Namibia and on international waters.

(e) Fifthly, neither the Final EIR nor the Environmental Management Programme Report included TotalEnergies’ Oil Spill Contingency Plan or Blow Out Contingency Plan.

(f) Sixthly, PASA delivered an appeal response report which at face value was submitted on behalf of the DG and was treated as such by the Minister.

Judgment:
On 13 August 2025, Judge Mangcu-Lockwood delivered judgment in favour of the applicants on the first five grounds of review and dismissed the sixth.

First Ground: The court held that once the Final EIR identified a potential blowout and oil spill as a potentially significant impact or risk, it was obliged to assess the consequences and probability of the impact or risk including those with a low degree of probability. The court rejected TotalEnergies’ distinction between a “risk” and an “impact” stating this was “against the spirit and purport of these Regulations. Both are required to be assessed in terms of the legislation, in equal measure.”

Second Ground: The court found that the DG’s decision made no specific mention of ICMA. Even based on a generous reading of the record, the court was unable to conclude that the Final EIR, and by extension the DG, considered ICMA factors. The court held:

“As the applicants point out, ICMA introduces concepts which are not present in NEMA or other aspects of environmental law, by conferring a special legal status on coastal public property, which afforded the environment a particularly high level of protection. It expressly provides that the State holds the coastal public property in trust for current and future generations. It creates the concept of the interests of the whole community, which specifically recognises the need to take into account the interests of other living organisms which are dependent on the coastal environment. As such the ICMA’s requirements cannot be satisfied by generic consideration of NEMA.”

The court found that the DG then failed to consider the ICMA factors and that his decision stood to be reviewed and set aside. The Minister’s decision was described as “woefully deficient” as it did not explicitly identify the ICMA factors to be considered and failed to set out any findings in respect thereof.

Third Ground: The court held there is “no doubt that climate change impact assessment must form part of the assessment to be conducted and considered before the grant of an environmental authorisation.” Regarding the distinction between exploration and production phases, the court stated: “Whilst it is correct that the specific activity for which the EA in this case is granted is exploration and not production… the two processes are intertwined. There would be no point in conducting an exploration activity unless an entity hoped to proceed to the next phase of production.”

Fourth Ground: Applying sections 232 and 233 of the Constitution, which require consideration of customary and international law, the court held:

“There is accordingly an obligation arising from customary international law and international law upon South Africa to not allow its territory to be used in a manner which causes transboundary harm. The duty includes a requirement for an environmental impact assessment to be conducted where an activity such as the present exploration activity, which poses a risk of transboundary harm, is to be conducted.”

Fifth Ground: The court found that given more focused information would be provided in the Oil Spill Contingency Plan and Blow Out Contingency Plan in another round of submissions it was “difficult to conclude that there had been a full assessment.” Even more problematic was the lack of public participation regarding these plans.

Sixth Ground: The court dismissed this ground and found that PASA as an organ of state designated under section 70 of the MPRDA to perform public functions was entitled to submit an appeal response.

Remedy:
The court made the following order:

  1. Shell Exploration and Production South Africa BV was joined as the fifth respondent. There were no costs in relation to the joinder application.
  2. The applicants’ late service of the review application was condoned.
  3. The decision taken by the third respondent on 17 April 2023 to grant an environmental authorisation to TotalEnergies to conduct exploratory operations in Block 5/6/7 was reviewed and set aside.
  4. The decision taken by the first respondent on 24 September 2023 dismissing the appeal of the first and second applicants was reviewed and set aside.
  5. The decision of granting an environmental authorisation to TotalEnergies was remitted to the third respondent for reconsideration, which process must provide for the following:
  6. TotalEnergies must be afforded the opportunity to submit new or amended assessments to cure the deficiencies identified in the first to fifth grounds of review.
  7. Public participation must be conducted in regard to the new and/or amended assessments submitted by TotalEnergies before decision is made by the third respondent.
  8. The first to third respondents were ordered to pay the costs of this application, jointly and severally, on a scale C, including the costs of three counsel.

Status of the case:
The High Court judgment has set aside the environmental authorisation and the matter remitted for reconsideration. The State and Shell have filed applications for leave to appeal, either before the Supreme Court of Appeal or a full bench of the High Court of South Africa.

Case Documents:
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa can be found here.

Commentary:

Academic and professional commentary on the cases is available here, here, and here.

Related case:
For related case-law, see:

Suggested Citation:
High Court of South Africa, Western Cape (Cape Town), Division Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others, case no. 5676/2024, 13 August 2025, Judge Mangcu Lockwood.

Last updated:
3 August 2026.

Credits:
This database entry was contributed by Camagu Luvo, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Categories
Access to a remedy Climate activists and human rights defenders Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to health Right to life Russian Federation

Danilov et al. v. Russia (Russian Climate Case)

Summary:
In August 2023, a group of individuals and NGOs filed a climate application against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants, made up of two NGOs (Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group) and 18 individuals (including Indigenous persons and human‑rights defenders) challenges Russia’s climate policies and (in)actions for violating their human rights, citing Russia’s high per capita greenhouse gas emissions and particularly its high methane emissions. They argue that:

Russia is ranked as responsible for the third largest cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial era. Currently, it is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world and the second biggest source of global energy-related methane emissions. As of 2021, it was the world’s largest exporter of fossil gas, the second largest exporter of oil, the third largest coal exporter and the largest gas flaring nation. It has the world’s second-largest coal reserves, and its 2020 Energy Strategy plans an increase in domestic coal production annually up to 2035. Russia has no quantifiable methane reduction plans and did not sign up to the COP26 global methane pledge. These factors materially affect global and Arctic climate risk.

As well as that:

Expert evidence shows Russia’s published policy from 2020 and 2021 allows emissions to continue rising to 2030 and only minimally decline thereafter — far above levels compatible with protecting human life and health or with Paris Agreement temperature targets. The Climate Action Tracker assesses Russia’s climate action as ‘critically insufficient’. The case argues that these policies breach constitutional and international human‑rights standards and Russia’s climate obligations. Most recently, Russia has issued a new emissions decree providing for a weaker 2035 emissions target. The new target is about 22% greater than Russia’s reported 2021 emissions.

After being rejected by the domestic courts, the applicants brought their case to the ECtHR, describing it as “the first and only climate challenge by Russian citizens to Russia’s policies at Strasbourg. Given Russia’s withdrawal/expulsion from the Council of Europe and the repressive context for human rights and environmental defenders, this is likely the last such case within a legally binding international forum during the critical climate mitigation window.” In Strasbourg, the applicants argue that the case remains in the Court’s temporal jurisdiction and invoke the rights to life, health, home and family life (Articles 2 and 8 ECHR), as well as the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) and that prohibition of discrimination in relation to youth applicants and Indigenous applicants (Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8 ECHR). They also argue that the Russian Government has sought to undermine the case, thereby interfering with their right to bring the case, in violation of Article 34 ECHR. Notably, it is reported that since the case began, both applicant NGO’s have been dissolved by the Russian courts, one applicant had his citizenship and that of family revoked and individual applicants and their lawyer have been designated ‘Foreign Agents’ under Russia’s Foreign Agent Law.

Further reading:
For a discussion of the case, see Joanna Evans, ‘The Russian Climate Case: A Crucial Test for the European Court of Human Rights’, Völkerrechtsblog, 15 December 2025, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-russian-climate-case/.

More information on the case is provided by the applicants here.

Suggested citation:
ECtHR, Danilov et al. v. Russia, app. no. 9296/24, filed in August 2023.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Australia Disability and health-related inequality Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Fossil fuel extraction Human Rights Committee Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to culture Right to life

Poelina et al. v. Australia

Summary:
On 20 June 2026, a communication against Australia was filed with the UN Human Rights Committee. The authors of the communication, who live in five Australian states, argue that Australia’s continued licensing of fossil fuel projects violates their rights under several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), namely the right to life (Article 6 ICCPR), the right to privacy, family, and home life (Article 17), and the right to culture (Article 27). Drawing on the International Court of Justice’s 2025 climate advisory opinion, as well as the ECtHR’s 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen judgment and the IACtHR’s 2025 climate advisory opinion, they submit that they have experienced several rights-impacting events, all of which were “made substantially more likely and severe by anthropogenic climate change, to which Australia materially contributes through its production of fossil fuels for export.” This includes extreme heat, bushfires or wildfires, flooding, and toxic algal blooms. The authors build their claims on past extreme events that impacted several authors’ Aboriginal culture and lands, which have been flooded and face toxic algal blooms destroying traditional food sources and ways of life. Two authors also risked their lives fighting the 2019-2020 bushfires, with one losing his home to the flames and another volunteering as a firefighter. Other authors live with disabilities or health conditions that place them particularly at risk from heat waves or floods.

Relying on scientific reports and expert evidence (especially the Anderson and Calverley report), the authors submit that current levels of GHG emissions mean that “there are less than two years remaining to ensure warming is limited to 1.5°C”. They also argue against models that tolerate overshooting 1.5°C, arguing that States cannot rely on unproven carbon removal technologies to return below that level of warming and that technologies to remove or sequester carbon, notably carbon, capture, and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), remain unproven and ineffective.

The core of the communication is the argument that Australia has failed the “stringent due diligence” standard, which the ICJ has interpreted as requiring states to “use all means at their disposal” to prevent significant harm to the climate system by aligning their actions with a global pathway that limits warming to 1.5°C. In an illustrative list of internationally wrongful acts, the ICJ listed “fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies” (para 427). Based on this finding, the communication argues that Australia’s ongoing conduct relating to fossil fuel exploration, production and subsidies violates the authors’ ICCPR rights.

The authors note that Australia is “one of the world’s leading historical and current producers of fossil fuels for export” (as of 2024, the second largest global exporter of coal, and the third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, with ca. 80% of Australia’s total fossil fuel CO2 footprint coming from fossil fuel exports as of 2022). Despite its international obligations to act on climate change, the authors submit, the Australian government’s policy “remains to maximise fossil fuel exports, and Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel projects that will export fossil fuels for decades to come, in some cases into the 2070s.”

To make this argument, the authors submit that due diligence to prevent significant environmental harm must be informed by the precautionary principle; that due diligence requires Australia to regulate third parties within its jurisdiction and control; that due diligence requires assessment of the cumulative effects of activities within Australia’s jurisdiction or control; that due diligence requires adopting mitigation measures that reflect best available science; that due diligence requires adopting mitigation measures that reflect best available science; that a State’s failure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in ways consistent with due diligence is conduct attributable to that State that may violate human rights; that a State’s failure to regulate its export of fossil fuels, consistent with due diligence, is also attributable conduct that may violate human rights obligations; that there is a sufficient causal nexus between Australia’s non-compliance with human rights and the specific harms experienced by the authors; that legal standards of causation for individual harm in the context of climate harms are flexible, as demonstrated by various courts; that there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus to satisfy the ICJ’s approach to causation when assessing injury; that Australia’s fossil fuel exports are a material contribution to climate change and have caused, and will foreseeably cause, harm to the authors; that continued fossil fuel production means that Australia is not taking the necessary measures to prevent harm to the climate system; and that these acts and omissions are violating ICCPR rights.

Attribution science (the Thiery, Watkins, Cook and Crisp reports):
The Communication extensively details the concrete impacts faced by the applicants, and is accompanied by several expert reports that attribute the harms experienced to the impacts of climate change. The “Thiery report” concerns overall climate attribution, including heatwaves, bushfires, ocean warming, severe storms, drought, algal blooms, and sea-level rise; the “Watkins Report” concerns flooding; and the “Cook Report” concerns toxic algal blooms. The authors also submitted two reports by Dr George Crisp on climate-related health impacts for two of the authors.

Export emissions (the Anderson and Claverly report):
The Communication challenges Australia’s plans to produce fossil fuel for export on the basis a report by Anderson and Claverly. The report evaluates whether the estimated carbon budgets compatible with ‘achieving around a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C and around 83% chance of not exceeding 2°C’ of global warming can accommodate emissions from Australia’s projected coal and LNG exports. The authors of the report conclude that ‘under assumptions favourable to Australia,’ the evidence is unequivocal that Australia’s planned export pathways are not compatible with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals.

Admissibility (the Peel Report):
On the admissibility of the communication, concerning the absence of proceedings on the domestic level, the authors argue that they have satisfied the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule because Australian law does not offer redress for the harms at stake and the rights violations invoked.

To support this argument, they submit a report authored by Prof. Jacqueline Peel, who together with two co-author shows that there are no effective remedies available to the Authors to redress their alleged harms to the standards set out previously by the Committee, as there are no effective judicial or administrative avenues to compel Australia to align its production of fossil fuels for export with pathways for 1.5°C of warming. This is due to the fact, in particular, that Australian courts cannot compel the government to align fossil fuel exports with a 1.5°C pathway; that there is no constitutional or national-level statutory bill of rights in Australia; that existing statutory frameworks do not provide an effective remedy; and that there is no common law duty of care owed to the Authors in this context. In doing so, the report reflects the Committee’s own reasoning in Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia (2022), where the Committee found that the communication was admissible because no effective remedy was available to the Authors.

Relief sought:
The authors seek for their ICCPR rights to be upheld and note that the violation of these rights cannot be addressed only through mitigation of emissions released in Australia or through adaptation measures. Instead, they argue, exported (“Scope 3”) emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports materially contribute to climate harms. They seek for the Committee to:

  • Declare that the Australian government’s acts and omissions related to fossil fuel production for export, and its failure to adequately regulate the public and private operators involved, violate its human rights obligations to prevent a global average temperature increase of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
  • Establish violations of the authors’ rights to life; privacy, family, and home life; and culture under the Covenant.
  • Recommend the creation of a domestic process to review the compatibility of Australia’s fossil fuel exports with pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C.
  • Recommend an urgent phaseout of production of fossil fuels for export, including ceasing relevant public subsidies.
  • Recommend that Australia pause approvals for fossil fuel production projects for export.

Case documents:
The communication in this case can be downloaded below.

unhrc-poelina-et-al-v-australia-20-06-2026_redactedDownload

Suggested citation:
UN Human Rights Committee, Anne Poelina, Barry Traill, Brendon Donohue, Catherine, Jack Egan, Latishamarie Francis, Pamelarose Francis, Melissa Fisher, Sama Youhana and Rikki Dank v. Australia, Communication of 20 June 2026.

Categories
Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Participation rights Participation rights

Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Attorney General of Canada

Summary:
On 15 June 2026, an application for judicial review was brought in Canadian Federal Court against the Canadian Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and the Attorney General of Canada. The applicants are Marie Maltais, Sophia Mathur, Shirley Barnea, the NGO Environmental Defence Canada and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, supported by Ecojustice. The second applicant in the case was also an applicant in the earlier case of Mathur et al. v. the Queen in Right of Ontario.

The application alleges that the Minister failed to amend Canada’s Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP) for 2030 in ways that bring it into compliance with legal obligations under the Canadian Net Zero Accountability Act (CNZEAA). The case thus primarily concerns compliance with the targets set out under a domestic climate law, but also involves a procedural rights element given that amendments to an ERP require public and Indigenous consultation under domestic law. This refers to the fact that the CNZEAA allows the Minister to amend the ERP, but in doing so must provide interested persons, Indigenous peoples and others to make submissions.

Application:
The full text of the application can be downloaded below.

Maltais_2026-06-15-Issued-Notice-of-Application-T-2843-26Download

Further information:
The applicants held a press conference concerning the application on 16 June 2026, which can be watched here.

A press release on the case is available here.

Suggested citation:
Federal Court of Canada, Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Attorney General of Canada, file no. T-2843-26, filed 15 June 2026 (pending).

Last updated:
22 June 2026.

Categories
2024 Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Committee on the Rights of the Child Finland Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Minority rights Non-discrimination Participation rights Participation rights Renewable energy Right to culture Right to health Standing/admissibility Uncategorized

M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v. Finland

Summary:

On 13 September 2024, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) adopted views in the communication M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v. Finland. The communication concerned the granting of a mineral exploration permit on the traditional territory of the Sámi people without previous impact assessment (EIA) or free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The authors of the communication were three sisters, all minors (aged 13, 15 and 16) at the time of filing. They submitted that their rights under articles 8 (right to preservation of identity), 27 (adequate standard of living) and 30 (minority rights) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), interpreted in light of article 24 (right to health) and all read alone and in conjunction with article 2.1 (non-discrimination), were violated by Finland in permitting a mineral exploration project on their traditional territory without proper EIA and without obtaining the FPIC of their community. They requested interim measures to stop the exploration activity.

The communication concerned the “Lätäs 1” mineral exploration permit sought by a Finnish government agency in 2014, requesting permission to explore deposits of gold, copper and iron by drilling 100 to 300 meter deep holes into the bedrock in 20 locations in the authors’ traditional reindeer herding territory.

The authors argued that “in a situation where the sustainability and transmission to new generations of Sámi reindeer herding culture is already under threat”, given the cumulative impact of past interventions in their territory, as aggravated by climate change, any new intervention violated their right, as Indigenous children, individually and in community with each other and other Sámi, not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture under article 30 CRC.

The authors noted also that: “Finland’s CO2 emissions put it on place 57 among all countries in absolute terms, and 29 per capita, as responsible for climate change, is an argument of why the mineral exploration project object of the current communication violates the Convention in the current circumstances created by climate change. While the authors understand that mitigating climate change requires replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, they fear that badly chosen forms of such transition may have serious impact on their culture if the transition entails mining (to get battery minerals for electric cars and solar panel systems) and windmill parks in the Sámi territory which already is subject to other great pressures”.

Views of the UNCRC:

The UNCRC, in its Views on the communication, engaged with the State’s objection that the climate aspects of the case had not been raised in the domestic proceedings, whereby the authors had argued that their climate-related claims were raised “only to substantiate their claims on articles 8, 27 and 30 of the Convention, and
not to present a separate claim based on climate change.” The UNCRC accordingly found that all available domestic remedies had been exhausted (para. 8.4).

Although the Committee ‘noted’ the authors’ claim concerning the difficulties of transmission of Sámi herding culture created by climate change and other threats, it did not further engage with these claims in the remainder of its Views, which ultimately found that:

9.24 (…) to ignore the right of Indigenous peoples to use and enjoy land rights and to refrain from taking appropriate measures to ensure respect in practice for their right to offer free, prior and informed consent whenever their rights may be affected by projects carried out in their traditional territories, constitutes a form of discrimination, as it results in nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by Indigenous peoples, on an equal footing, of their rights to their ancestral territories, natural resources and, as a result, their identity. The Committee moreover considers that the discrimination suffered by an Indigenous people also impacts their children, whose
preservation of cultural identity is crucial as they represent the continuity of their distinct people.

(…)

9.25 The Committee therefore concludes that the information before it reveals that the granting of the exploration permits without having ensured the effective participation of the authors in a consultation process based on a prior impact assessment of the exploration works on the consequences for Sámi reindeer herding, amounted to violations of the authors’ rights under articles 8, 27 and 30, read in conjunction with article 2.1 of the Convention.

Views:

CRC-C-97-D-172-2022_E_UVDownload

Commentary on the case:

Counsel for the applicants has written about this case that, based on this and other Indigenous rights cases, they “anticipate new cases by the Sámi and other Indigenous peoples concerning states’ positive obligation to undertake positive measures and to treat Indigenous peoples differently from the mainstream population, including when the preservation and transmission to new generations of their distinctive cultures and livelihoods so require in the challenging times of climate change.”

Suggested citation:

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v. Finland, CRC/C/97/D/172/2022, Views of 13 September 2024.

Categories
2026 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to life Separation of powers United States of America

Kaarina Dunn et al. v. Public Service Comission of Wisconsin, et al.

Summary:
On 23 April 2026, a court in the US state of Wisconsin ruled in a youth climate case against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin State legislature. The case was filed by fifteen young people ranging in age from 8-17. The youth plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of statues governing the approval of fossil fuel-fired power plants because those statutes limit the ability of the first respondent, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, to consider air quality impacts of when issuing permits for such plants. In doing so, they had invoked their rights, under the Wisconsin state constitution, to liberty and to life, as well as the rights to a stable climate system and to access, enjoy and use navigable waters (both of which they considered inherent within the constitution). They also alleged a violation of Wisconsin’s public trust doctrine.

According to the Plaintiffs, climate change has rendered them unable to enjoy Wisconsin’s natural resources, like its rivers and lakes, as well as prevented them from engaging in recreational activities, like swimming and skiing. Some are deprived of their Indigenous cultural traditions, while others have experienced asthma and contracted Lyme disease.

The judge tasked with resolving this case, Judge Julie Genovese, ruled that “[w]hile the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question”. The judge discussed Wisconsin’s political question doctrine, which “dictates that courts will not decide questions that require the court to determine what the best or wisest public policy would be”, and “also embodies a practical component, recognizing that matters of economic and social policy are not reasonably “susceptible to judicial management or resolution.””

The judge concluded that:

“by substituting this court’s judgment for the legislature, the court
would be showing a lack of respect for the legislative and executive branches. Plaintiffs do not like these policy decisions. (…) Because Plaintiffs think it is technologically and economically feasible for Wisconsin to be carbon free by 2050, they conclude that by invalidating the statutes and thus their limitations, the PSC will decide to stop approving fossil fuel-fired plants, and Plaintiffs’ carbon free goal will be achieved. While the court may agree with Plaintiffs’ policy preferences, it would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants to substitute my judgment for theirs, and strike the limitations imposed by the legislature and executed by the PSC. Accordingly, because the court concludes that the legislature’s policy decisions represent a nonjusticiable political question, this case must be dismissed.”

Full text of the judgment:
The full text of the judgment is available for download below.

Decision Wisconsin 2026Download

Submission on behalf of the state:
The submission made on behalf of the state government can be downloaded below.

Filing Legislature’s attorney Ryan WalshDownload
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.