Courts redraw climate rules for energy
Hyphen Web Desk
Climate litigation is exerting growing force over energy policy, with judges and international tribunals increasingly shaping how governments approve projects, regulate emissions and weigh the costs of climate harm. That legal shift is becoming especially significant for Africa, where policymakers and lawyers are pressing for a stronger voice in rulings that could affect development choices, energy access and the pace of transition across a continent that remains lightly represented in the global climate case docket.
The scale of the trend is striking. UNEP said that by 30 June 2025, 3,099 climate-related cases had been filed across 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international or regional courts, tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies. Its review also shows how unevenly that litigation is distributed: cases in the Global South accounted for 9.8 per cent of the global total when the United States is included, while Africa represented 2.1 per cent of non-US cases. Those figures help explain why African legal institutions and campaigners are seeking greater influence over the rules now emerging from international courts.
A pivotal moment came on 23 July 2025, when the International Court of Justice said countries must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution and could face compensation claims from states harmed by climate change. Reuters reported that the court’s opinion said states have duties to limit harm from greenhouse gases and regulate private industry, and that failure to cut emissions could amount to an internationally wrongful act. Although advisory opinions are not enforced like ordinary judgments, lawyers have already begun using the ruling in active cases, underscoring how quickly such opinions can migrate from The Hague into domestic energy disputes and infrastructure battles.
That development did not begin with the ICJ. In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea concluded that states have specific obligations under the law of the sea to protect and preserve the marine environment from climate change impacts and ocean acidification. The tribunal said governments must consult one another in good faith, take effective measures, use the best available science and apply the precautionary approach. For energy producers and coastal states, that matters because offshore drilling, shipping, fisheries and gas development now sit more squarely inside a legal framework that links environmental stewardship with due diligence duties.
Africa’s concern is not simply legal symbolism. The continent contributes less than 4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to African and international institutional assessments, yet faces some of the harshest climate pressures. At the same time, many governments argue that gas, power generation, industrialisation and broader energy expansion remain essential for growth and poverty reduction. That creates a more complex policy setting than the one often assumed in litigation driven from wealthier jurisdictions, where the main focus is cutting emissions from already mature energy systems.
That tension is helping drive Africa’s push for a clearer regional jurisprudence. The Pan African Lawyers Union filed a request on 2 May 2025 for an advisory opinion from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights on states’ obligations in addressing the climate crisis. By late March 2026, amicus briefs were still being filed, and rights groups said the court was poised to issue an opinion. The African Union, for its part, held a post-opinion workshop in Addis Ababa in November 2025 describing the ICJ ruling as confirmation that climate protection is a legal duty grounded in equity, due diligence and cooperation.
The impact reaches well beyond governments. Research highlighted in the London School of Economics snapshot of 2025 litigation trends says more than 250 strategic cases have been filed against companies since 2015, while newer databases are tracking climate-damage and loss-and-damage claims against corporate actors. The same review points to growing investor relevance, citing research that large carbon majors could face very substantial liabilities over time, even if payouts arrive gradually rather than through sudden shocks. That prospect is likely to sharpen scrutiny of financing, disclosure, insurance and boardroom oversight in the energy sector.
The scale of the trend is striking. UNEP said that by 30 June 2025, 3,099 climate-related cases had been filed across 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international or regional courts, tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies. Its review also shows how unevenly that litigation is distributed: cases in the Global South accounted for 9.8 per cent of the global total when the United States is included, while Africa represented 2.1 per cent of non-US cases. Those figures help explain why African legal institutions and campaigners are seeking greater influence over the rules now emerging from international courts.
A pivotal moment came on 23 July 2025, when the International Court of Justice said countries must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution and could face compensation claims from states harmed by climate change. Reuters reported that the court’s opinion said states have duties to limit harm from greenhouse gases and regulate private industry, and that failure to cut emissions could amount to an internationally wrongful act. Although advisory opinions are not enforced like ordinary judgments, lawyers have already begun using the ruling in active cases, underscoring how quickly such opinions can migrate from The Hague into domestic energy disputes and infrastructure battles.
That development did not begin with the ICJ. In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea concluded that states have specific obligations under the law of the sea to protect and preserve the marine environment from climate change impacts and ocean acidification. The tribunal said governments must consult one another in good faith, take effective measures, use the best available science and apply the precautionary approach. For energy producers and coastal states, that matters because offshore drilling, shipping, fisheries and gas development now sit more squarely inside a legal framework that links environmental stewardship with due diligence duties.
Africa’s concern is not simply legal symbolism. The continent contributes less than 4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to African and international institutional assessments, yet faces some of the harshest climate pressures. At the same time, many governments argue that gas, power generation, industrialisation and broader energy expansion remain essential for growth and poverty reduction. That creates a more complex policy setting than the one often assumed in litigation driven from wealthier jurisdictions, where the main focus is cutting emissions from already mature energy systems.
That tension is helping drive Africa’s push for a clearer regional jurisprudence. The Pan African Lawyers Union filed a request on 2 May 2025 for an advisory opinion from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights on states’ obligations in addressing the climate crisis. By late March 2026, amicus briefs were still being filed, and rights groups said the court was poised to issue an opinion. The African Union, for its part, held a post-opinion workshop in Addis Ababa in November 2025 describing the ICJ ruling as confirmation that climate protection is a legal duty grounded in equity, due diligence and cooperation.
The impact reaches well beyond governments. Research highlighted in the London School of Economics snapshot of 2025 litigation trends says more than 250 strategic cases have been filed against companies since 2015, while newer databases are tracking climate-damage and loss-and-damage claims against corporate actors. The same review points to growing investor relevance, citing research that large carbon majors could face very substantial liabilities over time, even if payouts arrive gradually rather than through sudden shocks. That prospect is likely to sharpen scrutiny of financing, disclosure, insurance and boardroom oversight in the energy sector.
Labels:
#Syndication
Share:
