A global climate accountability wave is breaking
Something big is happening in the fight for climate action.
Around the world, courts are beginning to spell out what governments must do to protect people from climate harm, and what can happen when they don’t.
From the Dutch Caribbean to the Klimaseniorinnen judgment in Europe, and the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on states’ obligations in respect of climate change, the era of climate accountability may finally be arriving.
So what connects these breakthroughs, and what might they mean for countries like Australia and our Pacific neighbours?
Turning promises into legal duties
In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland’s weak climate policies violated people’s rights to life and health. The case, brought by senior Swiss women known as the Klimaseniorinnen, confirmed that failing to cut emissions fast enough can breach human rights law.
In the Caribbean, residents of Bonaire, supported by Greenpeace, are suing the Dutch government for failing to protect them from rising seas and extreme heat. While billions are spent defending the Dutch coast, there’s no comparable plan for Bonaire, an omission the plaintiffs say is unlawful.
The ICJ’s recent Advisory Opinion goes even further, confirming that states have binding obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and safeguard human rights. In short, governments who ignore the climate crisis are breaking the law.
Courts guided by science
Judges are increasingly citing climate science when deciding what reasonable climate action looks like. That means decisions are being guided by evidence, not just politics. It seems like a no-brainer but represents a genuine breakthrough.
The Bonaire case will likely test how national courts use the ICJ’s guidance, showing how global legal opinions can influence domestic law.
Expanding who can sue
In many countries, it’s difficult for individuals to sue over something as complex as climate change. But in the Klimaseniorinnen case, the court ruled that associations, not just individuals, can take action if they represent people directly affected.
This could open the door for more community groups, Indigenous land councils, or environmental organisations to bring cases. Even when plaintiffs don’t win outright, these cases can shift public debate, influence legislation, and make governments more cautious about delay.
A growing wave
If this momentum continues, courts across Africa, Latin America and the Pacific may soon face similar arguments: that protecting people from climate change is a legal duty, not an option. As these decisions accumulate, they could create a patchwork of precedents too strong for governments to ignore.
The view from Australia and the Pacific
Australia is in a difficult spot.
Recent climate litigation puts fossil fuel heavyweights like Australia on notice. It strengthens calls from Pacific leaders who have long argued that Australia’s emissions and coal exports endanger their peoples’ rights and futures.
Yet Australia’s 2035 climate target still falls short of what’s needed for a 1.5°C pathway, a gap that now carries legal as well as political risk. And its bid to co-host COP31 with the Pacific raises the question: will its actions withstand the scrutiny that partnership brings?
Future challenges could argue that Australia’s continued support for fossil fuels breaches its duty of care, both to its own citizens and to its Pacific neighbours.
What happens next
Some courts will move cautiously; others may require governments to strengthen plans or targets. Some governments will resist. But the boundaries of law and policy are shifting, one ruling at a time.
We may look back on this moment as the start of a new era of climate accountability. The wave is forming, and how it breaks will shape our shared future.