From litigation to implementation: framing smart remedies in rights-based climate litigation

Report

Climate litigation has emerged as a transformative force in climate governance in the last decade, with domestic courts and international bodies increasingly recognising climate change impacts as violations of fundamental rights. Legal victories in courts, however, are not always implementation victories for effective climate action. This report maps the emerging landscape of human rights-based climate remedies, analysing implementation barriers, and proposing a framework for “smart remedies” that seeks to close the gap between litigation and implementation in human rights-based climate litigation. Our analysis identifies four primary categories of human rights-based climate remedies: implementation-forcing remedies (compelling action through already existing legislative frameworks), target-setting remedies (mandating new legislation and policy for specific emissions reductions), oversight mechanisms (creating institutional structures), and procedural access remedies (ensuring meaningful participation of affected communities and individuals). The effectiveness of these types of remedies varies significantly based on institutional context, political will, and remedy design. Implementation challenges include political resistance, resource constraints, governance fragmentation, tensions between short-term urgency and long-term flexibility, competing policy objectives, and meaningful participation by affected communities and civil society actors in the implementation processes. The report proposes a framework for crafting ‘smart remedies’ based on four core principles: balancing specificity with flexibility, incorporating scientific authority while maintaining adaptability, aligning remedies with institutional capacity, and designing for accountability, transparency, and participation. Smart remedies must be tailored to case specifics, with distinct approaches for mitigation and adaptation cases. Effective implementation mechanisms include supervised implementation processes, expert advisory bodies, and staged implementation with clear benchmarks. These mechanisms can bridge the gap between ambitious judicial mandates and practical climate action by creating sustained accountability while accommodating governance realities. By addressing the implementation gap, courts can fulfil their emerging role in climate governance. This approach requires moving beyond viewing litigation success as a binary outcome – a win or loss - to understanding implementation as a continuous, adaptive process requiring sustained engagement by courts, litigants, policymakers, and civil society

Authors: Lozada, M; Çalı, B

• Publication status: Published
• Publisher: Bonavero Institute of Human Rights
• Series: Bonavero Reports
• Place of publication: Oxford, UK
• Publication date: 2025-11-13
• DOI: 10.5287/ora-pya9yk6o2
• Commissioning body: Law
• Paper number: 4/2025
• Language: English
• Keywords: international law; climate change