INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Ruth Knox and Julian Wolfgramm-King, Paul Hastings LLP
Court-Watching The ICJ’s opinion joins a series of recent international judicial decisions on climate obligations, including opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in July 2025 and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in May 2024, signalling a growing convergence in the interpretation of climate-related duties under international law. Across our surveyed jurisdictions, the constitutional starting points differ sharply. Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court held in 2021 that inadequate planning beyond 2030 unlaw - fully shifted the burden of reduction onto future gen - erations (triggering a tightening of emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2045), and Italy amended its con - stitution in 2022 to protect the environment and eco - systems in the interests of those generations. Cana - da has no equivalent provision and resolves climate questions through the division of powers between federal and provincial governments. New Zealand’s climate statutes sit outside its unwritten constitution and are not entrenched, so they can be amended by ordinary parliamentary majority. The United Kingdom relies on the Climate Change Act 2008 rather than constitutional protection, though courts have enforced specific duties under it. In Germany, Saul v RWE has given rise to more litiga - tion seeking to enforce or expand legal obligations for emission reductions and push for greater transpar - ency and accountability. While Italian climate litigation is at an early but rapidly developing stage, the courts are beginning to affirm the potential jurisdiction of the courts over climate-related claims and consider Euro - pean human rights jurisprudence. Meanwhile, Dutch jurisprudence continues to fascinate climate change legal experts. A Dutch court held in January 2026 that national climate policy breached human rights obliga - tions owed to residents of Bonaire. The Dutch state will appeal the decision. Further, in May 2026 a Dutch environmental organisation began a second claim against Shell, this time arguing that because climate harm occurs throughout the Netherlands, any Dutch court may hear it. If that argument is accepted, com - panies anywhere could be sued and become a hub for private enforcement of climate obligations glob - ally. New Zealand’s Supreme Court recently declined to strike out claims in respect of a proposed novel
sure requirements were paused. Across the European Union, sustainability reporting was first delayed and then, in March 2026, the number of in-scope reporting entities was narrowed considerably. Italy has legis - lated for a compensation mechanism for companies facing emissions trading costs and has asked the European Commission to suspend the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in certain sectors. New Zea - land has gone further than most, removing the require - ment for its emissions trading scheme settings to align with its international commitments and directing the scheme instead at domestic budgets. At the same time, Germany has designated renewable projects as being in the overriding public interest, with onshore wind permits rising by 90% in 2024 and a further 48% in 2025, and has reformed its carbon storage legisla - tion to permit offshore pipelines and storage. In carbon markets, regulatory infrastructure is begin - ning to mature in certain jurisdictions in respect of vol - untary carbon markets without merging into regulated compliance carbon markets. The European Union’s certification framework for carbon removals took effect in December 2024, with detailed implementing rules following in November 2025. Portugal now oper - ates a statutory voluntary market with a public registry, qualified verifiers and approved methodologies, and allows credits carrying wider environmental benefits, opening a route towards biodiversity credits that few other jurisdictions have taken. New Zealand is extend - ing recognition beyond forestry to wetland restoration, peatland rewetting and nature-based or technological removals. Among the jurisdictions in this Guide, none has yet authorised a single project or issued a letter of authorisation under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, despite the rules being finalised nearly two years ago. Border measures have proved the most influential. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism entered full operation on 1 January 2026, and its effects are already visible across EU member states and beyond. Canada retained industrial carbon pricing in part because carbon costs paid domestical - ly reduce the liability of its exporters at the European border. The United Kingdom’s equivalent regime will apply from January 2027.
6 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook