Chapter 5 traces the history of a number of existing UN mechanisms which represent the interests of particular vulnerable groups in the international system (persons with disabilities, women, and children). The aim of this analysis is to see what types of normative discourses have found traction and led to the development of institutions to represent these vulnerable groups, in order to ascertain the type of normative arguments that would gain support in arguing for international institutions to represent future generations. An important lesson from the case studies is that a normative discourse in which development concerns feature prominently, has been a common thread running through the history of these UN mechanisms. The chapter analyses the differences and similarities between arguments which justify the institutions which have been put in place to represent these vulnerable groups, with arguments used to justify institutions to represent future generations.

Chapter 2 demonstrates that traditional concepts of representation – including agency-based, and audience models – struggle in their application in relation to future generations. Direct and indirect forms of proxy representation are distinguished and legal forms of proxy representation. Various modes of proxy representation at the national level are set out, which are relevant due to the inspiration they provide for proposals at the international level. A range of existing forms of proxy representation in the international legal order are set out, in order to demonstrate that proxy representation of future generations represents a modest rather than radical reform. We then assess the extent to which indirect representation of future generations is incorporated in the international legal order in terms of environment-related principles. A matrix setting out the range of functions which proxy representation may perform is set out. By distinguishing these functions, a more nuanced understanding can be obtained as to the functions of existing modes of proxy representation as well as reform proposals.

Chapter 6 contains a case study in which we sketch how the normative framework set out in part A of the book, can be used as a basis for arguments that can be made in relation to the ongoing ICJ advisory opinion on climate change. It argues that the court should interpret international rules in a manner which furthers justice including intergenerational justice. This is essential for maintaining the court’s legitimacy, which must include its future legitimacy. The court should flesh out the principle of intergenerational equity by defining it in terms which require states to take climate action to ensure protection of the human rights of future generations necessary for them to lead a decent life. In addition, the normative framework is used to argue for: (i) an particular interpretation of the no harm rule to incorporate harm towards future generations and (ii) reform of the procedural rules of the ICJ so as to allow NGOs and scientists to make amicus curiae submissions (directly or implicitly) on behalf of future generations in proceedings before the court.

The Conclusion reiterates the overarching argument of the book, namely that the search for – and collective experimentation with – new forms of representation are immensely important forms of sustainable climate policy. Through proxy representation, future generations can be practically and institutionally involved in climate law and policy-making, considering both the vulnerability of future generations and their distinctive interests. The chapter discusses the need to find synergies between proposals for proxy-style mechanisms to represent future generations and development policy. New avenues for research are suggested, including the way in which science and scientific discourse can be a proxy for future generations’ interests, and also the way in which proxy representation of future generations features in climate treaty making processes and climate activism more generally.

In Chapter 3, firstly, we reconstruct central theoretical models of democracy and enquire how an expansion of representation mechanisms for future generations could be conceptualised within these justificatory narratives. Secondly, we analyse the values that underlie democratic practices which can be helpful for advancing proxy representation at the international level by providing ethical criteria for such reforms. This involves analysing the discourses of intergenerational justice, solidarity and vulnerability. The chapter then turns to examine how these discourses can be translated into political forms of proxy representation by drawing on the all affected principle which requires that those affected by a decision have a role in the making of that decision, which is argued to be an element of most, if not all theories of democracy. This in turn is hypothesised to provide a basis for extension of the demos to include future generations, which then justifies proxy forms of representation to enable their representation . Human rights are argued to constitute a practice of global values which provides a powerful normative orientation for climate law and policy-making.

Chapter 7 involves an analysis of the 2019 case brought to the UN committee on the rights of the child by 16 young people (Saachi et al. 2019). The case is assessed in terms of its legitimacy and effectiveness in promoting intergenerational justice discourses and its capacity to act as an indirect proxy representative for future generations. The chapter argues that while there are distinct limitations in the rights of the child complaints system (with an asymmetry in power between children and the states involved, with decisions being non-binding), the Saachi case, nevertheless, has the potential to have both a political and legal impact. It is one of the few avenues at the international level which allows young people increasingly impacted by climate change to have a voice. It can also allow young people to act as proxy representatives for future generations, while the Committee to date has been reticent to move in this direction. Finally, some elements of the decision are likely to be taken up in future climate litigation at the international and national levels.

Chapter 9 examines the principle of the duty of care in the context of climate litigation. The authors explore how this principle has been invoked in a growing range of jurisdictions, in different ways, to hold governments and corporations accountable for their respective contributions to climate change. By analysing judicial decisions in prominent cases such as Urgenda and Milieudefensie in the Netherlands, Neubauer in Germany, and Notre Affaire à Tous in France, the authors explore the potential of the duty of care principle to compel more ambitious climate action in pending and future cases. The emerging best practice they identify suggests a growing willingness of courts to recognise a duty of care for governments and corporations towards citizens in relation to climate change.

Chapter 5 on Admissibility delves into the factors determining whether a climate case can be heard in court. It presents a clear understanding of the criteria for admissibility and their potential implications on the trajectory of climate litigation. The chapter also delves into the interplay between domestic and international legal rules and norms and their influence on the criteria for admissibility. The author’s analysis reveals that a restrictive interpretation of admissibility criteria can present formidable access to justice barriers, particularly for those most impacted by climate change. In light of these challenges, the author’s distillation of emerging best practice highlights instances where courts and quasi-judicial bodies have interpreted admissibility criteria to ensure access to justice. Specifically, the chapter highlights cases where these bodies have considered human rights and justice imperatives in their admissibility decisions. These decisions highlight the potential for an inclusive and equitable approach to climate litigation, one that aligns with the global nature of the climate crisis and the urgent need for climate justice.

Chapter 14 on Intergenerational Equity sheds light on how this principle, which posits a responsibility to ensure that future generations inherit a habitable planet, has been invoked in climate cases to date. The authors examine how this principle has been interpreted and applied across different jurisdictions, highlighting the notable contributions of jurisprudence from the Global South in shaping the development and understanding of the principle. Through an examination of leading cases from around the world, they illuminate how courts in these jurisdictions have infused their decisions with a consideration for future generations, thereby advancing a more inclusive and long-term perspective on climate justice. The authors distil instances of emerging best practice where the principle of intergenerational equity has been invoked to guide legal reasoning and judicial decisions in climate cases. They underscore the potential of this principle to shape future climate litigation, particularly as the impacts of climate change increasingly span across generations.

Chapter 11 delves into the Rights of Nature, an emerging legal paradigm that ascribes legal rights to natural entities. Drawing on concrete examples from countries such as Ecuador and Colombia, the author elucidates the transformative potential of this paradigm in the realm of climate litigation. One of the most compelling aspects of this approach is the shift it instigates in our legal and ethical relationship with the natural world. By conferring rights upon nature, it challenges the traditional conception of nature as mere property or resource, and it promotes a more holistic relationship with our environment. The author argues that this shift can play a critical role in achieving climate justice by ensuring that the rights and interests of nature itself are protected in the face of climate change. The analysis of emerging best practice reveals that, while still in its early stages, the Rights of Nature approach is starting to gain traction in climate litigation around the world.

Chapter 1 introduces The Cambridge Handbook on Climate Litigation. The editors provide an overview of the development of climate litigation and its landmark victories, including the Urgenda, Leghari, and KlimaSeniorinnen decisions. They illuminate how the Handbook will help judges, lawyers, scholars, and other actors navigate the labyrinth of legal intricacies that define the rapidly evolving climate change litigation landscape. To shed light on the methodology of the publication, the chapter details the empirical basis for the work, which involved an exhaustive cataloguing of climate litigation case law to date. This is followed by an explanation of the analytical framework that underpins each of the chapters – a framework focused on distilling ‘emerging best practice’. The latter portion of the chapter details each section of the Handbook and summarises the analyses of the contributing authors. Ultimately, the Handbook aims to inspire dialogue as well as robust and innovative legal reasoning in future climate cases.

The last several years have featured the development of legal longtermism – the set of theories associated with the view that law should be concerned with ensuring the long-term future goes well. Although recent literature has shown that the principles underlying legal longtermism are widely endorsed across the Anglosphere, it remains an open question whether these principles are endorsed across cultures. Here we surveyed laypeople (n=2,938) from ten countries – Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom and United States – regarding law’s role in protecting future generations. We find participants in our sample widely endorse (a) increasing legal protection for future humans beyond current levels; (b) extending personhood and standing to some subset of humans living in the near and far future; and (c) prioritizing the interests of future people over those of present people in some national and international lawmaking scenarios. Taken together, these results suggest the notion of granting rights and legal protection to future generations is endorsed cross-culturally, carrying wide-ranging implications for legal theory, doctrine, and policy.

This chapter maintains that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may usefully intervene in the complex and multifaceted litigation that has developed before national and international tribunals, as well as human rights treaty bodies, concerning national climate policies adopted to implement international obligations. By considering the rationale and nature of climate litigation, the chapter seeks to point out what international law rules the ICJ should take into account (especially clarifying their existence and scope) in order to make a real contribution to national and international jurisprudence.

A new way of thinking about environmental problems has emerged since the 1980s. Environmental problems are increasingly seen as systematically entwined, with human action as their primary cause. We are in a new epoch in Earth’s history, the Anthropocene, and climate change is its most immediate and dramatic manifestation. The drivers of the Anthropocene can be seen through the lens of a simple equation: Environmental impact is the product of population, affluence, and technology. Nations and individuals vary greatly in their impacts, so questions of justice are unavoidable. Questions of justice extend across generations as well as among nations and individuals. Ultimately, we must ask what kind of world we want for ourselves and our children.