In a global context of unmet climate targets and mounting scientific warnings, this book examines the pressure on courts to decide whether stronger action is legally required. Juliana de Augustinis explores how judges engage with scientific evidence on greenhouse gas mitigation when ruling on climate change lawsuits.
Providing a comparative study of climate mitigation cases in multiple jurisdictions, de Augustinis highlights differences in climate change litigation across Europe, North America, and jurisdictions in the Global South. Chapters combine legal analysis with empirical methods to highlight how favourable outcomes for claimants are more frequently observed in cases where courts engage explicitly with mitigation data. The book demonstrates how courts can address separation-of-powers concerns through collaborative and forward-looking remedies, enabling effective climate protection while respecting democratic boundaries.
Providing systematic analyses of systemic mitigation cases, this book is an imperative resource for scholars and researchers in climate change law and litigation. Climate advocates, judges, and legal practitioners will also find the contributions invaluable to their work.
