A report published by Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) found that as of June 2025, 3,099 climate-related cases have been filed across 55 jurisdictions since 1986 – up from 2,180 in 2022 and just 884 in 2017.
Of these, nearly two-thirds (1,986) were filed in the United States. Other hotspots were Brazil, the United Kingdom and Germany, each with more than 50 cases. Cases from the Global South still represent less than 10 per cent of the total, but are steadily growing.
In Asia Pacific, most cases were filed in Australia (161), New Zealand (36), followed by Indonesia (15), India (14), South Korea (12), Pakistan (6), China (5), Japan (5), Nepal (4), Papua New Guinea (4), the Philippines (3) and Thailand (1).
Courts in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar and Vietnam have yet to hear a climate case.
The report, Climate Change in the Courtroom: Trends, Impacts, and Emerging Lessons, is the fourth in a series launched in 2017, examining pending cases and court decisions over the last four decades.
The evolution of case filings since 1986, when the first climate case was recorded [click to enlarge]. New case filings began to proliferate after the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. Source: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
Since the first recorded case in 1986, climate litigation has broadened in scope. Domestic cases have targeted governments over climate rights, fossil fuel extraction, carbon sinks and climate migration. Lawsuits against corporations have tackled duties to cut emissions, liability for climate damages, the role of banks in funding climate-harming projects, and greenwashing.
In Asia, some of the most recent climate court cases have been served in Korea, including a suit filed by farmers seeking compensation from power utility Kepco, arguing its fossil fuel emissions have contributed to economic and emotional damage. South Korea was Asia’s first country to rule that climate action taken by the government was insufficient in a landmark ruling last year.
The report highlighted landmark global cases. In 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea declared that the 170 state parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea bear obligations to address marine pollution linked to climate change.
Earlier this year, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights was petitioned to clarify African states’ human rights obligations on climate change, while in July the International Court of Justice reaffirmed states’ legal obligations on climate action following a request from the UN General Assembly.
Human rights law is increasingly used to frame state obligations, particularly in Europe but also in countries such as Pakistan, while climate attribution science is providing stronger grounds for plaintiffs by linking greenhouse gas emissions to specific extreme weather events. Even when decisions are pending, strategic lawsuits can exert pressure on governments and corporations, prompting reform and unblocking inertia, the report said.
However, courts often require proof of individualised and imminent harm to confer victim status, which can be difficult to prove given the diffuse impacts of climate change. Weak enforcement may also limit the effectiveness of rulings, the report finds.
In Japan, several cases have been brought against the state and corporations to block thermal power – but have failed. Japanese courts have consistently ruled that climate-related harms fall under public, not individual, interests. In a case that concluded last year, the Tokyo high court rejected claims made by Yokosuka citizens against the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, ruling that preventing climate harm could not be protected through individual rights.
Similarly, in challenges to coal plant projects in Kobe, the Osaka High Court found no causal link between emissions and climate harm, despite acknowledging risks to health and life. Claims to a “right to a stable climate” were also dismissed, with courts holding that such a right is not legally established.
Given the role of companies in worsening the impacts of climate change, climate litigation claims have started to focus on the fiduciary duties of corporate directors. In Korea in 2023, claimants alleged that the director and auditor of the National Pension Service breached their fiduciary duties and did not adequately managed climate-related risk by failing to implement a coal phase out. At the time of writing, the case is still pendning.
‘Anti-climate’ litigation gaining momentum
“Anti-climate” litigation is also on the rise, the report found. These include efforts to roll back environmental protections, deprioritise ESG in investing, or intimidate climate advocates through criminal charges and civil suits. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) have been increasingly used to target journalists, non-government organisations and protesters opposing fossil fuel projects.
Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of SLAPPs cases between were brought in countries in the Global South – and a quarter of all global SLAPP cases in Asia – according to 2015-2021 data from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, a non-profit.
SLAPP suits have been increasingly used to quash environmental investigation in Thailand. Thai journalist Pratch Rujivanarom has been repeatedly sued by a local mining company operating in Myanmar. Mining companies are the leading initiators of SLAPP suits worldwide.
The report concludes that climate litigation is not only a legal mechanism but also a driver of societal norms, shaping how climate risk and responsibility are understood and how quickly action is taken.
“Climate litigation has evolved into a powerful global tool for advancing climate action and accountability,” Inger Andersen, UNEP executive director, said in a statement. “Independent judicial systems are essential to ensuring this transformation is both just and effective.”
