Abstract The carbon sink capacity of ecosystems has long been neglected, leading to their degradation and the release of stored carbon, thereby exacerbating climate change. As parties increasingly resort to courts to resolve controversies over the sufficiency of measures to combat climate change, carbon sinks are emerging as a focal point. In Europe, non‐governmental organisations in Finland and Germany brought lawsuits in 2022 against their governments for failing to meet statutory obligations under national climate legislation, specifically in the land‐use sector. In light of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion, which affirms the importance of enhancing carbon sinks for fulfilling States' duties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sinks are likely to continue to feature in climate cases. This article provides a comparative analysis of key elements in the Finnish and German cases to explore the potential of statutory law‐based arguments to challenge carbon sink degradation in other national contexts. Furthermore, it explores the possible limits of legal strategies that focus on carbon reduction goals, without taking account of competing, or perhaps complementary, social values and biodiversity protection goals. The legal strategies examined are of broader relevance and may serve as a blueprint for similar actions in other jurisdictions, even as their divergent outcomes underscore the importance of differences in legal systems. Specifically, the article considers the possibility of a similar challenge in Ireland, aimed at addressing the degradation of peatlands, an ecosystem that remains underexplored in legal scholarship despite being the most space‐efficient terrestrial carbon sink. Through imagining the scenario in Ireland and anticipating the complexities and opportunities of such a legal action, the article contributes to an emerging body of legal research on the role of carbon sinks in climate litigation, while also highlighting the limitations of advancing their protection through the courts.
Accogli et al. (Tue,) studied this question.