Litigating Climate Change: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Judicial Responses to a Shared Crisis

Climate change litigation has emerged as a pivotal mechanism through which courts across jurisdictions tackle a shared global crisis. This article examines judicial responses to climate-related claims, focusing on how courts interpret duties of states, corporations, and individuals in the face of escalating environmental harm. The objective is to demonstrate that litigation is not merely reactive but is shaping the normative frameworks of climate governance, establishing precedents that transcend national boundaries. The study situates itself within existing legal scholarship that has largely emphasized either the doctrinal limits of climate litigation or its symbolic value. By offering a cross-jurisdictional analysis, this article contributes a comparative perspective that highlights convergences and divergences in judicial reasoning, thereby underscoring the transformative potential of litigation as a tool for accountability and systemic change. This matters because courts are increasingly positioned as arbiters of climate justice, filling gaps left by political inertia and fragmented international regulation. Methodologically, the research draws on case law from diverse jurisdictions - including constitutional courts, administrative tribunals, and international bodies, supplemented by secondary legal scholarship and policy documents. These sources are analyzed through doctrinal and comparative methods to trace patterns of judicial engagement, identify emerging principles, and assess their implications for global climate governance. The article argues that while judicial responses vary, they collectively signal a shift toward recognizing climate change as a justiciable crisis demanding enforceable obligations.