The comparative politics of courts and climate change

Disappointment with international efforts to find legal solutions to climate change has led to the emergence of a new generation of climate policy. This includes the emergence of courts as new ‘battlefields in climate fights’. Cross-national comparative analysis of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia supplements research that has found that litigation plays an important governance gap-filling role in jurisdictions without comprehensive national-level climate change policies. The inductive research design identifies patterns in climate change litigation. The three countries illustrate the varieties of climate policies, and thus serve as a useful entry point for thinking more generally about the interplay between climate politics and legal mobilisation. To improve theoretical understandings of the role of courts in climate change politics, the range of litigants and the variety of cases brought to courts under the umbrella of the term ‘climate change litigation’ are identified.