How to read this
UN climate regime
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992) is the parent treaty. Parties meet in the Conference of the Parties (COP) to negotiate decisions. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) set binding targets for listed developed-country Parties for commitment periods and helped popularize flexible mechanisms that later informed carbon markets. Today’s universal pledge architecture is the Paris Agreement, but Kyoto remains important historical context for ETS and crediting debates.
Activism and civil society shape agenda-setting around COPs and national implementation; legal foundations still rest on treaties, domestic statutes, and court judgments rather than campaign materials alone.
Paris Agreement and NDCs
Adopted at COP21 (2015), the Paris Agreement asks Parties to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 °C and to hold the increase well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Each Party prepares a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)—a self-defined climate pledge updated on a negotiated cycle. Article 6 covers cooperative approaches, including bilateral transfers (6.2) and a multilateral mechanism (6.4).
In DECARB, carbon pricing may list World Bank Article 6.2 rows, and country hubs may surface Climate Watch NDC context when cached. The app does not ship full NDC text corpora or a complete UNFCCC registry.
- UNFCCC NDC information
- Climate Watch NDC explorer (WRI)
- DECARB simulator — Paris temperature markers on a documented global pathway
Loss and damage
“Loss and damage” refers to climate impacts beyond what adaptation can fully avoid. COP27 established a funding arrangement for responding to loss and damage; later COPs continued operational decisions on the fund. For current institutional detail, use UNFCCC pages rather than secondary summaries.
Human rights and climate litigation
Regional and national courts increasingly hear climate claims under constitutional environmental rights, administrative law, tort, and human-rights instruments. The European Court of Human Rights, domestic constitutional courts, and some international advisory processes have become reference points—but each forum has its own standing rules and remedies.
The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion on states’ obligations in respect of climate change (23 July 2025). Advisory opinions are not the same as bilateral contentious judgments; read the ICJ text for operative paragraphs.
- ICJ — Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change
- OHCHR — Climate change and human rights
- ECtHR factsheet — Climate change (Council of Europe)
- Sabin Center Climate Case Chart — searchable directory of cases (not a DECARB data source)
Landmark cases (public overview)
A small set of widely discussed cases. Each blurb is an original short summary for orientation; follow the link for the judgment or a reliable case page that cites it.
Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands
Supreme Court of the Netherlands · 2019
The Dutch Supreme Court upheld lower-court orders requiring the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 relative to 1990 levels. Often cited as an early high-court climate mitigation duty case grounded in domestic law and European human-rights standards as applied by Dutch courts.
Neubauer et al. v. Germany
Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) · 2021
The Court held that parts of the Federal Climate Change Act were incompatible with fundamental rights because the Act did not sufficiently specify emissions reductions pathways beyond 2030, shifting an excessive burden onto younger generations. Parliament later amended the statutory pathway.
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) · 2024
The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Switzerland’s climate-protection framework, and clarified association standing in that case. Same-day companion applications (including Duarte Agostinho) were declared inadmissible—do not conflate those outcomes.
Held v. State of Montana
Montana state courts (United States) · 2023–2024
Youth plaintiffs challenged Montana statutes limiting climate consideration in environmental review. A trial court ruled for the plaintiffs in 2023; the Montana Supreme Court largely affirmed that the MEPA Limitation violated the state constitution’s environmental protections (December 2024). Read the opinions for operative holdings—state constitutional law does not automatically travel elsewhere.
Massachusetts v. EPA
Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
The Court held that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutant” and that EPA must ground any refusal to regulate in the statute. Foundational U.S. administrative-law climate precedent—not a global human-rights holding.
Official sources to keep open
- UNFCCC
- Paris Agreement hub
- IPCC reports — science assessments; not legal holdings
- HUDOC (ECtHR)
- International Court of Justice
- OHCHR
Back to concepts and module deep links on /learn, or jump to glossary.