In the last three years, climate litigation has emerged as a re-shaping force in climate governance, with over 3,000 cases recorded globally across nearly 60 countries. This expansion includes government accountability frameworks, corporate liability claims, greenwashing litigation, youth- and rights-based actions, and challenges to project approvals. Even in cases involving negative judgments against citizens who have brought actions against companies, new legal principles could provide a useful basis for making the polluter-pays principle more effective.
A good example is the case of Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE. This Peruvian farmer sued the German electric company for damages arising from glacial melt and the consequent flood risk to his property in South America. Lliuya argued that RWE’s historic greenhouse gas emissions caused or substantially contributed to anthropogenic climate change, which is melting Andean glaciers and increasing flood hazards in Peru. In 2025, the Court found that RWE’s emissions were a contributing factor to global warming and that the company had knowledge of climate risks but dismissed the specific damages claim due to difficulties with causation and apportionment. However, the German Court confirmed a landmark principle: major industrial emitters can be held liable for climate-related harm, even where the damage occurs abroad and involves complex causal chains.
This case establishes the doctrinal foundations for ‘polluter pays’ liability and could be beneficial in other lawsuits, such as those filed against Shell for Typhoon Odette in 2021 in the Philippines and against RWE and Heidelberg Materials after the 2022 floods in Pakistan.
These cases represent the emergence of ‘climate justice’ litigation from the Global South, seeking compensation from wealthy nations and multinational emitters for loss and damage already occurring in vulnerable countries. They signal potential expansion of corporate liability for climate impacts in developing nations.
This climate legal revolution can be bolstered by last year’s landmark advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which established binding legal obligations on all states to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing significant environmental damage to other states or the global commons—a development with profound implications for future litigation and state accountability worldwide. The ICJ also affirmed that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature limit is the primary temperature goal and has legal force, meaning states cannot treat 1.5°C as merely aspirational; they must demonstrate that their policies align with this binding temperature target.
A binding opinion that could rewrite international climate law. Provided that international law credibility and effectivity survive the increasingly heavy and frequent attacks launched in particular by the United States against the International Criminal Court, accusing it of illegitimacy and anti-US, anti-Israel bias. Attacks that risk undermining the rule of law and send a devastating message to victims seeking accountability worldwide. Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Gianni Serra
-
By: ONE Editor
Italian professional journalist. ONE Editor in Chief and Sotacarbo Director of Communications and International Relations.
-
