Rights, Remedies, and Responsibility: Climate Litigation in the Age of Global Governance

Abstract

Climate change is no longer merely a concept or confined to the environmental crisis; it has become an issue of defining justice, human rights, and governance in the 21^st Century. The evolving landscape of climate litigation, focusing on the tripartite framework of Rights, Remedies and Responsibility. The three pillars of Rights, Remedies, and Responsibility had become so important to the completion of the litigation. The three pillars are the framework that would ensure environmental betterment. As global governance shifts from top-down treaties to polycentric legal efforts, plaintiffs are increasingly invoking their fundamental rights, such as the right to life, health, and a healthy environment, to compel accountability from states and corporations. The different cases laws are identified, and it is stated how courts are bridging the gap between national law and international law, and are committed towards conventions like the Paris Agreement or any other treaties. Climate change has not emerged as an environmental crisis, but has invaded many human rights and global governance. Climate litigation has a transformative role in global governance, bridging the gap between international environmental commitments and domestic enforcement. It examines how the right to a healthy environment has defined the state’s responsibility, forced the courts to develop new remedies, including necessity mandates and oversight of commissions, and addressed existential threats posed by climate change. The rise of climate litigation as a mechanism for accountability and the integration of the human rights framework into climate change are evolving responsibilities of states, corporations, and international institutions. The paper explores the shift from procedural challenges to substantive rights-based claims. The expansion of the Duty to Care doctrine and the challenges of securing effective judicial remedies. The paper argues that while litigation cannot replace a comprehensive policy. It serves as an essential mechanism for enforcing. However, the paper argues that litigation cannot replace legislative actions. It serves the vital governance of last resort, forcing transparency and establishing a global legal precedent for climate accountability. The paper will discuss the various case laws that affect climate management and ensure environmental governance.