Credits: Otto Spijkers
About the Research Clinic on Climate Litigation for Future Generations
In February-April of 2026, I had the pleasure of convening a Research Clinic on Climate Litigation for Future Generations at Leiden University College in The Hague. The idea for this clinic emerged from a growing awareness that courts around the world are playing an increasingly prominent role in shaping climate policy.
Dutch climate litigation has been especially influential. Landmark cases such as the Urgenda case have demonstrated how international human rights law can be mobilized to compel more ambitious climate action. Since then, a series of high-profile cases has continued to push the boundaries of climate law: Milieudefensie v. Shell, the greenwashing proceedings against KLM, and the case brought by Greenpeace Netherlands together with residents of Bonaire, seeking and finding stronger protection against climate impacts in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. These cases, all initiated by public-interest organizations, raise fundamental questions about how the law can protect not only those living today, but also future generations who will bear the long-term consequences of current decisions.
While I was already familiar with developments in the Netherlands, I wanted to explore how these questions are being addressed elsewhere. The Research Clinic was designed to do precisely that. Students were invited to investigate climate litigation in a jurisdiction of their choice, often their home country or a legal system they found particularly compelling, and to examine how the rights and interests of future generations are being articulated, represented, and (sometimes) enforced.
From a strong pool of 22 applicants, 10 students were selected to participate. Over the course of seven weeks, we met weekly to discuss their research. Each student focused on a specific jurisdiction and explored how climate litigation is evolving there, with particular attention to intergenerational justice. As a starting point, we drew on the extensive resources of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law of Columbia University Law School in New York, in particular their Climate Litigation Database. Early in the clinic, we were fortunate to be joined by Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre, director of that center, whose insights into global climate litigation provided valuable guidance for the students’ work.
Throughout the clinic, students developed their research in stages. They first prepared a written draft analyzing key cases in their chosen jurisdiction, then presented their findings to the group for discussion. These exchanges proved to be one of the most rewarding aspects of the clinic, allowing students to compare legal approaches across jurisdictions and to reflect critically on shared challenges. After incorporating feedback, each student produced a revised report. The blog posts in this symposium are based on that work.
Overview of All Contributions
The symposium consists of nine contributions, each offering a distinct perspective on climate litigation for future generations.
Eva Persichetti examines Italy. Despite a constitutional amendment explicitly recognizing environmental protection “in the interest of future generations,” courts have been reluctant to enforce such principle. In A Sud v. Italy, claimants argued that inadequate climate policies violated fundamental rights, but the court dismissed the case as a political matter beyond judicial review. Eva highlights a central tension: while legal frameworks increasingly acknowledge intergenerational responsibilities, courts may hesitate to intervene where doing so would require evaluating complex policy choices. As a result, recognition risks remaining largely symbolic.
Sadie Damianidis examines developments in Canada. Canadian cases such as La Rose, Lho’imggin, and Mathur frame climate change as a violation of constitutional rights, emphasizing its disproportionate impact on youth and Indigenous communities. Yet courts have largely avoided engaging with the substance of these claims, dismissing them on justiciability grounds or rejecting the idea that the Charter imposes positive obligations on the state. Sadie highlights an important strategic lesson: claims that target specific legislation, rather than broad policy frameworks, may be more likely to succeed. While rights-based arguments remain promising, Canadian litigation illustrates the structural hurdles that continue to limit their effectiveness.
Marek Chuman examines developments in Czechia, where climate litigation is beginning to gain momentum despite a historically skeptical political context. A key innovation is the use of the carbon budget framework, which translates abstract intergenerational obligations into concrete legal arguments. Although an initial court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs was later overturned, the case demonstrates how constitutional rights can be mobilized creatively. Marek also highlights the role of children as representatives of future interests, bridging the gap between present and future harm. His analysis suggests a gradual but significant shift toward integrating intergenerational considerations into legal reasoning.
Giorgia Urari turns to Germany and the landmark Neubauer case. Here, the Federal Constitutional Court took a significant step by recognizing that fundamental rights have an intertemporal dimension. By conceptualizing rights as “intertemporal guarantees of freedom,” the Court held that insufficient climate action today can unjustly burden future generations. This reasoning led to stronger emission reduction targets and has been widely celebrated as a breakthrough. At the same time, Giorgia notes that subsequent legislative developments reveal an ongoing tension: judicial recognition does not automatically translate into lasting political commitment. The legacy of Neubauer will depend on continued vigilance to ensure that its principles are not undermined over time.
Juliette Bormann’s contribution focuses on Colombia’s Amazon case, a decision that has attracted global attention for its innovative approach. The Colombian Supreme Court recognized not only future generations, but also the Amazon itself, as rights-holders. It framed environmental degradation as an ongoing violation of fundamental rights, extending protection to “the unborn.” However, Juliette points out that this conceptual expansion raises difficult questions. The precise legal status of future generations remains unclear, as does the relationship between human rights and the rights of nature. Moreover, implementation of the Court’s ambitious orders has been uneven. The case demonstrates both the transformative potential of judicial reasoning and the practical challenges of turning bold principles into effective action.
Will Anderson’s analysis of the United States shifts the focus to procedural barriers. In Appalachian Voices v. EPA, the central issue is not the substance of climate harm, but whether the case can be heard at all. Jurisdictional disputes have led to what Will describes as “jurisdictional ping-pong,” with courts redirecting claims between forums. This procedural complexity can delay or even prevent meaningful review, undermining efforts to secure relief. The case illustrates how access to justice is a crucial component of climate litigation: even strong substantive claims are of limited value if courts never reach the merits.
Miruna Ungureanu’s contribution on Romania highlights the importance of access to justice. Her analysis shows that the main challenge is not necessarily the recognition of future generations’ rights, but whether those rights can be effectively defended in court. Procedural barriers, such as costs, standing, and access to information, play a decisive role in determining whether climate cases can proceed. NGOs often act as representatives of future generations, but they face increasing pressure and risk. Miruna’s central insight is that without meaningful access to courts, intergenerational justice remains largely theoretical.
Sofia Escorel’s contribution on Brazil draws attention to the intersection of climate litigation, Indigenous rights, and intergenerational justice. The Tuxa Ta Pame case illustrates how climate mitigation initiatives, such as carbon credit projects, can themselves create harm if implemented without proper consultation. The case frames these harms not only as present-day violations, but as burdens that extend to future generations and Indigenous communities. Sofia’s analysis underscores that effective climate action must be both environmentally and socially just, respecting the rights and autonomy of those most directly affected.
Finally, Maja Versa explores the contribution of the European Court of Human Rights in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland. The Court acknowledged that climate change raises issues of intergenerational justice, emphasizing the concept of intergenerational burden-sharing. It held that states must take into account the long-term consequences of their actions and avoid placing disproportionate burdens on future populations. However, the Court stopped short of granting future generations direct legal standing. Maja shows that this approach represents an important step forward, while also leaving key questions unresolved.
Conclusion: Some Common Themes and Lessons
Taken together, these contributions reveal a common pattern. Courts across jurisdictions are increasingly willing to recognize the relevance of the interests of future generations, yet they often struggle to translate that recognition into concrete legal outcomes. Some decisions push doctrinal boundaries, while others expose persistent procedural and institutional constraints. A recurring theme is the gap between recognition and enforcement: future generations are acknowledged in principle, but rarely empowered directly.
Climate litigation for future generations is therefore still evolving. Its success will depend not only on innovative legal arguments, but also on procedural access, judicial willingness, and sustained political commitment. The contributions in this symposium offer valuable insights into this evolving field and highlight both its promise and its limits.
Bio
Otto Spijkers is assistant professor of international and European law at Leiden University College (LUC), Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs of Leiden University, where he convened a Research Clinic on Climate Litigation for Future Generations. Before joining Leiden University College, Otto was professor of international law at Wuhan University’s China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies as well as its Research Institute of Environmental Law. Prior to joining Wuhan University, he worked at the Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law and Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea of Utrecht University, Netherlands. He wrote his doctoral dissertation, entitled The United Nations, the Evolution of Global Values and International Law, at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies of Leiden University.