Climate Change and Law: International Climate Treaty System, Climate Litigation, and Corporate Liability
## International Climate Legal System: From Kyoto to Paris
**Kyoto Protocol (1997)** was the first legally binding international emissions reduction agreement, but only set specific reduction targets for developed countries, with the US (one of the largest emitters) never ratifying and Canada later withdrawing. **Paris Agreement (2015)** adopted a different legal architecture: countries self-determine emissions reduction targets (NDCs, Nationally Determined Contributions) and update periodically, but the targets themselves have no legal binding force — only “transparency obligations” (reporting and verifying emissions data) are truly binding. The Paris Agreement is criticized as a “soft constraint” mechanism, relying on transparency and peer pressure rather than legal compulsion. The [UNFCCC](https://unfccc.int/) is the core institution.
## Climate Litigation: Law Compensating for Political Inaction
**Climate Litigation** increased substantially after 2015: by 2023, over 2,000 climate-related cases had been filed in courts worldwide (Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law data).
**Government litigation**: *Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands* (2019 Supreme Court) — the Dutch government was ruled to have climate action that failed to meet European Convention on Human Rights obligations regarding the right to life and private life, required to reduce emissions below 25% of 1990 levels by 2020. The first successful such case, triggering similar litigation in Germany, UK, Australia. **Corporate litigation**: Multiple US states (Massachusetts etc.) filed suits against ExxonMobil and other oil companies, alleging decades of hiding climate risk (internal research predating scientific and public climate change awareness) constitutes consumer and securities fraud.
