Separation of Powers and Climate Litigation: International Law as a Guide Between Judicial Activism and Legislative Prerogatives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2724-6299/22114Keywords:
separation of powers, climate change litigation, human rights, judicialization of international law, access to justice, IPCCAbstract
This article examines the principle of separation of powers in the context of climate litigation, asking whether and to what extent courts may legitimately intervene when political authorities fail to act on climate change. Starting from the premise that separation of powers is historically and contextually relative, the article shows how this relativity is reflected in judicial practice on climate change. Notably, a comparative analysis of domestic and international case law identifies three distinct approaches: strict deference to political institutions, moderate review, and active intervention, illustrating how different legal systems draw the boundary between law and politics in climate matters. In light of this variability, the article argues that international law can offer a unifying normative framework by constraining political discretion and supporting judicial scrutiny: through binding obligations under climate and human rights law, as well as norms on access to justice, international law enables a functional understanding of the separation of powers in which courts legitimately uphold legal commitments in response to political inaction.
Downloads
References
Ackermann B. (2000). The New Separation of Powers, in Harvard Law Review, vol. 113, no. 3, 633.
Amoroso D. (2012). Insindacabilità del potere estero e diritto internazionale (Editoriale Scientifica).
Amoroso D. (2015). Judicial Abdication in Foreign Affairs and the Effectiveness of International Law, in Chinese Journal of International Law, vol. 14, no. 1, 99.
Azzarriti G. and Dellavalle S. (2014). Crisi del costituzionalismo e ordine giuridico transnazionale (Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane).
Bartole S. (1996). Per una valutazione comparativa dell’ordinamento del potere giudiziario nei Paesi dell’Europa continentale, in Studium juris, 531.
Bäumler J. (2021). Sustainable Development made justiciable: The German Constitutional Court’s climate ruling on intra- and inter-generational equity, in EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/sustainable-development-made-justiciable-the-german-constitutional-courts-climate-ruling-on-intra-and-inter-generational-equity/.
Bergkamp L. (2015). A Dutch Court’s ‘Revolutionary’ Climate Policy Judgment: The Perversion of Judicial Power, the State’s Duties of Care, and Science, in Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, vol. 12, no. 3-4, 241.
Biondi F. and Zanon N. (2014). Il sistema costituzionale della magistratura (Zanichelli).
Blattner C. (2024). Separation of Powers and KlimaSeniorinnen, in Verfassungsblog,
https://verfassungsblog.de/separation-of-powers-and-KlimaSeniorinnen/.
Bodansky D. (2023). Advisory Opinions on Climate Change: Some preliminary questions, in Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, vol. 32, no. 2, 185.
Breuer M. (2021). Principled resistance to the European Court of Human Rights and its case law: a comparative assessment, in Aust H. and Demir-Gürsel E. (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights: Current Challenges in Historical Perspective (Edward Elgar), 43.
Briegleb A. and De Spiegeleir A. (2023). From Urgenda to Klimaatzaak: A New Chapter in Climate Litigation, in Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/from-urgenda-to-klimaatzaak/.
Bruno I. (2022). La Causa Giudizio Universale. Quattro test costituzionali sui poteri del giudice adito, in Federalismi.it, https://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?Artid=47479&content=&content_author=.
Buszman Z. (2024). The pursuit of environmental justice: the adjudicative role of advisory opinions of creating obligations on States in respect of climate change, in Cambridge international Law Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, 261.
Butti L. (2024). Chi decide sulle politiche climatiche? contenzioso climatico, separazione dei poteri e “Rule of Law”, in Rivista Giuridica dell’Ambiente online, https://rgaonline.it/articoli/contributi/chi-decide-sulle-politiche-climatiche-contenzioso-climatico-separazione-dei-poteri-e-rule-of-law/.
Buyse A. and Istrefi K. (2024). Climate Cases Decided Today: Small Step or Huge Leap?, in ECHR Blog, https://www.echrblog.com/2024/04/climate-cases-decided-today-small-step.html.
Caianiello V. (1998) Formazione e selezione dei giudici in una ipotesi comparativa, in Giurisprudenza Italiana, 387.
Cappelletti M. (1984). Giudici Legislatori? (Giuffré).
Cecchi R. (2024). Il Giudizio (o Silenzio?) Universale: una sentenza che non farà la storia, in Diritti Comparati, https://www.diritticomparati.it/il-giudizio-o-silenzio-universale-una-sentenza-che-non-fara-la-storia/.
de Graaf K. J. and Jans J. H. (2015). The Urgenda Decision: Netherlands Liable for Role in Causing Dangerous Global Climate Change, in Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 27, no. 1, 517.
Di Martino A. (2024). Un caso historico en el litigio climático transnacional. derechos, intertemporalidad y democracia a partir del klima-beschluß del tribunal constitucional alemán, in Roma e America. Diritto Romano Comune, no. 2, 1.
Drigo C. (2025). Giurisdizione costituzionale e decisioni politiche: quali confini?, in DPCE Online, Vol. 66, No. SP 2, 7.
Dupuy P. M. and Viñuales J. E. (2018). International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press).
Eckes C. (2021a). Tackling the Climate Crisis with Counter-majoritarian Instruments: Judges Between Political Paralysis, Science, and International Law, in European Papers, no. 3, 1307.
Eckes C. (2021b). The Urgenda Case is Separation of Powers at Work, in Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2021-39, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3979729.
Eckes C. (2021c). Separation of Powers in Climate Cases: Comparing cases in Germany and the Netherlands, in Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/separation-of-powers-in-climate-cases/.
Eckes C. and Trapp T. (2024). The Aarhus Convention's Relevance for Climate Litigation Through the Lens of KlimaSeniorinnen, in European Law Blog, https://www.europeanlawblog.eu/pub/xx9vrteu/release/2.
Eckes C., Leino-Sandberg P. and Wallerman Ghavanini A. (2021). Conceptual Framework for the Project “Separation of Powers for 21st Century Europe (SepaRope), in Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2021-06, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777334.
Feria-Tinta M. (2023). An Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency and Human Rights before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Questions of International Law Zoom-In, https://www.qil-qdi.org/an-advisory-opinion-on-climate-emergency-and-human-rights-before-the-inter-american-court-of-human-rights/.
Follesdal A. and Ulfstein G. (2018). The Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing? (Oxford University Press).
Gallarati F. (2024). L’obbligazione climatica davanti alla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo: la sentenza KlimaSeniorinnen e le sue ricadute comparate, in DPCE Online, Vol. 64, no. 2, 1457.
Grossi P. (2015). Il giudice civile. Un interprete?, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto e Procedura Civile, vol. 70, n. 4, 1135.
Grossi P. (2012). Ordine, compattezza, complessità. La funzione inventiva del giurista, ieri ed oggi (Satura Editrice).
Guarna Assanti E. (2021). Il ruolo innovativo del contenzioso climatico tra legittimazione ad agire e separazione dei poteri dello Stato. Riflessioni a partire dal caso Urgenda, in Federalismi.it, no. 17, 66.
Guarna Assanti E. (2024). Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland: una conferma del ruolo fondamentale dei diritti umani per la tutela del clima, in Diritti Comparati, https://www.diritticomparati.it/verein-KlimaSeniorinnen-and-others-v-switzerland-una-conferma-del-ruolo-fondamentale-dei-diritti-umani-per-la-tutela-del-clima/.
Hazo R. G. (1968). Montesquieu and the Separation of Powers, in American Bar Association Journal, vol. 54, no. 7, 665.
Hilson C. and Geden O. (2024). Climate or Carbon Neutrality? Which One Must States Aim for Under Article 8 ECHR?, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/climate-or-carbon-neutrality-which-one-must-states-aim-for-under-article-8-echr/.
Hofmann A. (2018). Resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union, in International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 14, no. 2, 258.
Humphreys S. (2024). A Swiss Human Rights Budget?, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-swiss-human-rights-budget/.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report (SYR): Climate Change 2023, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/.
Iovane M. (2017). L’influence de la multiplication des juridictions internationales sur l’application du droit international, in The Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses, vol. 383, 233.
Kelsen H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State (Harvard University Press).
Kelsen H. (1942). Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the Austrian and American Constitution, in The Journal of Politics, vol. 4, 183.
Kelsen H. (1928). La garantie juridictionnelle de la Constitution, in Revue de Droit Public, vol. 45, 197.
Klabbers J. (2018). On Responsible Global Governance, in Klabbers J., Varaki M. and Vasconcelos Vilaca G. (eds), Towards Responsible Global Governance (Helsinki University Press), 11.
Kuh K. F. (2019). The Legitimacy of Judicial Climate Engagement, in Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 4, 731.
Kulovesi K. and Recio M. E. (2023). Fighting a Hard Battle with a Soft Weapon: Is International Climate Change Law Softening?. in Eliantonio M., Korkea-aho E. and Mörth U. (eds.), Research Handbook on Soft Law (Edward Elgar), 320.
Letsas G. (2024). Did the Court in KlimaSeniorinnen Create an Actio Popularis?, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/did-the-court-in-KlimaSeniorinnen-create-an-actio-popularis/.
Letwin J. (2024). KlimaSeniorinnen: The Innovative and the Orthodox, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/KlimaSeniorinnen-the-innovative-and-the-orthodox/.
Lin J. (2015). The First Successful Climate Negligence Case: A Comment on Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment), in Climate Law, vol. 5, no. 1.
Locke J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government (Awnsham Churchill).
Longo A. (2024). Passing the Baton: A Few Reflections on the Applicable Law in the ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, in SIDIBlog, http://www.sidiblog.org/2024/06/28/passing-on-the-baton-a-few-reflections-on-the-applicable-law-in-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-ocean-acidification/.
Luporini R. (2021). The “Last Judgment”: Early reflections on Upcoming Climate Litigation in Italy, in Questions of International Law, Zoom-in, https://www.qil-qdi.org/the-last-judgment-early-reflections-on-upcoming-climate-litigation-in-italy/.
Luporini R. and Kodiveri A. (2021). The role of human rights bodies in climate litigation, in EUI LAW Working Paper, vol. 12, https://cadmus.eui.eu/entities/publication/2dfc8298-2fa1-55fa-923f-04ba650666e7.
Luporini R. and Savaresi A. (2023). International Human Rights Bodies and Climate Litigation: Don’t Look Up?, in Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 267.
Macchia A. (2024). Diving into climate change: ITLOS’ Advisory Opinion in Case No. 31, in Diritti Comparati, https://www.diritticomparati.it/diving-into-climate-change-itlos-advisory-opinion-in-case-no-31/.
Magi L. (2021). Giustizia climatica e teoria dell’atto politico: tanto rumore per nulla, in Osservatorio sulle fonti, no. 3, 1029.
Maxwell L. S., Mead S. and van Berkel D. (2022). Standards for Adjudicating the Next Generation of Urgenda-style Climate Cases. in Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol. 13, no. 1, 35.
Mayer B. (2019). The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation: Ruling of the Court of Appeal of The Hague (9 October 2018), in Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 8, no. 1, 167.
Medici-Colombo G. and Ricarte T. (2024). The Escazú Agreement Contribution to Environmental Justice in Latin America: An Exploratory Empirical Inquiry through the Lens of Climate Litigation, in Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 16, no. 1, 160.
Mezzetti E. (2011). La Convenzione di Aarhus e l’accesso alla giustizia in materia ambientale, in Tanzi A., Fasoli E. and Iapichino L. (eds.), La Convenzione di Aarhus e l’accesso alla giustizia in materia ambientale (Wolters Kluwer), 81.
Milanovic M. (2024). A Quick Take on the European Court’s Climate Change Judgments, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-quick-take-on-the-european-courts-climate-change-judgments/.
Minnerop P. (2022). The “Advance Interference-Like Effect” of Climate Targets: Fundamental Rights, Intergenerational Equity and the German Federal Constitutional Court, in Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 34, no. 1, 158.
Misonne D., Torre Schaub M. and Adam A. (2025). Chronique sur la Justice Climatique en Europe (2024), in Revue Trimestrielle de Droit de l’Homme, vol. 142, no. 2, 435.
Möllers C. (2013). The Three Branches: A Comparative Model of Separation of Powers (Oxford University Press).
Montesquieu C. L. de S. B. (1748). De l’Esprit des lois (Barillot).
Morvillo M. (2019). Climate change litigation e separazione dei poteri: riflessioni a partire dal caso Urgenda, in Forum di Quaderni costituzionali - Rassegna, http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/wordpress/?p=12627.
Nollkaemper A. and Burgers L. (2020). A new classic in climate change litigation: the Dutch Supreme Court decision in the Urgenda case, in EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-new-classic-in-climate-change-litigation-the-dutch-supreme-court-decision-in-the-urgenda-case/.
Orakhelashvili A. (2020). Consensual Principle, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law.
Palombino G. (2024). Il Giudizio Universale è inammissibile: quali prospettive per la giustizia climatica in Italia?, in LaCostituzione.info, https://www.lacostituzione.info/index.php/2024/03/25/il-giudizio-universale-e-inammissibile-quali-prospettive-per-la-giustizia-climatica-in-italia/.
Pane G. (2023). Pro e contro dei rimedi domestici: prospettive di sinergia nel contenzioso climatico europeo, in Ordine Internazionale e Diritti Umani, no. 2, 375.
Passarini F. (2023). Legal Standing of Individuals and NGOs in Environmental Matters under Article 9 (3) of the Aarhus Convention, in Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, no. 3, 283.
Passarini F. (2020). Ambiente. CEDU e cambiamento climatico, nella decisione della Corte Suprema dei Paesi Bassi nel caso Urgenda, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, no. 3, 777.
Pedersen O. W. (2024). Climate Change and the ECHR: The Results Are In, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/climate-change-and-the-echr-the-results-are-in/.
Pedersen O.W. (2020). The networks of human rights and climate change: The State of the Netherlands v Stichting Urgenda, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019 (19/00135), in Environmental Law Review, vol. 22, no. 3., 227.
Peel J. and Osofsky H. M. (2018). A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?, in Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 7, no. 1, 37.
Peeters M. (2016). Urgenda Foundation and 886 Individuals v. The State of the Netherlands: The Dilemma of More Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action by EU Member States, in Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, vol. 25, no. 1, 123.
Petel M. and Vander Putten N. (2023). The Belgian Climate Case: Navigating the Tensions Between Climate Justice and Separation of Powers, in Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-belgian-climate-case/.
Polzin M. (2022). Emotion and the Vertical Separation of Powers: Ultra-Vires Review by National (Constitutional) Courts, and EU and International Law, in ICL Journal, no. 3, 285.
Priess C. (2025). Parallel Advisory Proceedings: The Climate Change Advisory Proceedings Before the ICJ, the ITLOS and the IACtHR, in International Community Law Review, vol. 27, no. 1-2, 7.
Ragni C. (2024). Cambiamento climatico e diritti umani alla luce del caso KlimaSeniorinnen, in Osservatorio Costituzionale, no. 6, 107.
Ragone S. (2025). Nomine, rapporti con i poteri politici e legittimazione delle Corti costituzionali: esperienze di Civil Law, in DPCE Online, Vol. 66, No. SP 2, 247.
Richelle J. (2022). Environmental procedural rights before European courts: still searching for a common script or multiplying avenues of protection?, in REALaw.blog, https://realaw.blog/2022/02/25/environmental-procedural-rights-before-european-courts-still-searching-for-a-common-script-or-multiplying-avenues-of-protection-by-justine-richelle/#:~:text=The%20rights%20of%20access%20to,and%20Access%20to%20Justice%20in.
Riemer L. and Scheid L. (2024). Leading the Way: The IACtHR's Advisory Opinion on Human Rights and Climate Change, in Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/leading-the-way/.
Ritz V. (2024). Climate tipping points: Tracing the limits of political discretion, in Leiden Journal of International Law, 1.
Rodríguez-Garavito C. (ed.) (2022). Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action (Cambridge University Press).
Ryall Á. (2019). The Aarhus Convention: Standards for Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, in Turner S.J., Shelton D.L., Razzaque J., McIntyre O. and May J.R., (eds.), Environmental Rights: The Development of Standards (Cambridge University Press), 116.
Saltalamacchia L. (2024). Il contenzioso climatico strategico ed il principio della separazione dei poteri, in Questione Giustizia, https://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/contenzioso-climatico-strategico.
Savaresi A. (2024). Climate Change Litigation: The Role of International Law, in Cambridge Journal of International Law, vol. 13, no. 2, 286.
Savaresi A. and Auz J. (2019). Climate Change Litigation and Human Rights: Pushing the Boundaries, in Climate Law, vol. 9, no. 3, 244.
Savaresi A. (forthcoming 2025). Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland: Making Climate Litigation History, in Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law.
Savaresi A., Nordlander L. and Wewerinke-Singh M. (2024). Climate Change Litigation before the European Court of Human Rights: A New Dawn, in Global Network of Human Rights and the Environment, https://gnhre.org/?p=17984.
Savaresi A. and Setzer J. (2022). Rights-based litigation in the climate emergency: mapping the landscape and new knowledge frontiers. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, n. 1, 7-34.
Schoukens H. (2024). Climate Change Litigation and the Separation of Powers: Effective Legal Protection as the Ultimate Yardstick?. in Sindico F., McKenzie K., Medici-Colombo G. and Wegener L. (eds.), Research Handbook on Climate Change Litigation (Edward Elgar), 184.
Smyth C. (2022). Marking out the Interpretive Possibilities of the Aarhus Convention, in Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 34, no 3, 541.
Spector C. (2015). La bouche de la loi? Les figures du juge dans L’Esprit des lois, in Montesquieu Law Review, no. 3, 87.
Spier J. (2020). ‘The “Strongest” Climate Ruling Yet’: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment, in Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 67, 319.
Staiano S. (2018). In tema di teoria e ideologia del giudice legislatore, in Federalismi.it, https://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?Artid=37045&content=&content_author=.
Suedi Y. (2025). Africa’s Turn: The African Court’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, in EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/africas-turn-the-african-courts-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change/.
UN Environment Programme (UNEP). (2023). Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43008/global_climate_litigation_report_2023.pdf?sequence=.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2014). The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide, https://unece.org/environment-policy/publications/aarhus-convention-implementation-guide-second-edition.
van Zeben J. (2015). Establishing a Governmental Duty of Care for Climate Change Mitigation: Will Urgenda Turn the Tide? in Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 4, no. 2, 339.
Verschuuren J. (2019). The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: The Hague Court of Appeal Upholds Judgment Requiring the Netherlands to Further Reduce Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, vol. 28, no. 1, 94.
Vinken M. and Mazzotti P. (2024). The First Italian Climate Judgment and the Separation of Powers, in Verfassungsblog, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-first-italian-climate-judgement-and-the-separation-of-powers/.
Weill R. (2023). On the Nexus Between the Strength of the Separation of Powers and the Power of the Judiciary, in William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, vol. 31, 705.
Wewerinke-Singh M. and McCoach A. (2021). The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: Distilling best practice and lessons learnt for future rights-based climate litigation, in Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, vol. 30, no. 2, 275.
Yiallourides C. and Deva S. (2024). A Commentary on ITLOS’ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, in British Institute of International and Comparative Law, https://www.biicl.org/blog/77/a-commentary-on-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change?DownloadPDF=1.
Zarbiyev F. (2012). Judicial Activism in International Law—A Conceptual Framework for Analysis, in Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol. 3, no. 2, 247.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Antonio Mariconda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
