Intersection between Climate Change, Public Health, and International Law: Litigation, Liability, and Legal Reform

The Intersection between Climate Change, Public Health, and International Law is no longer theoretical; it is unfolding in courtrooms around the world. Our Environmental Health Working Group recently published a peer-reviewed study in PLOS One titled “Legal implications of the climate-health crisis: a case study analysis of the role of public health in climate litigation.” The findings contribute to a growing body of scholarship examining how legal systems are responding to climate disruption as a public health emergency.

As climate attribution science advances and public awareness of climate-related health harms increases, public health arguments are entering climate litigation with greater frequency. Yet few researchers have evaluated this legal landscape through a dedicated public health lens. This report addresses that gap.

Why the Climate–Health–Law Nexus Demands Attention

There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is a public health emergency. Courts across jurisdictions are increasingly asked to determine whether governments and corporations are meeting their obligations under environmental law, human rights law, and climate policy frameworks.

Despite this, public health remains underutilized in legal argumentation.

Environmental degradation, biodiversity collapse, and rising greenhouse gas emissions continue despite decades of legal regulation. The health consequences are tangible:

• Rising food and water insecurity

• Deteriorating air quality

• Expansion of infectious diseases

• Increased frequency of floods, wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves

• Mental health impacts, including ecological grief and trauma

These harms demonstrate that climate change directly and indirectly undermines the legal commitments designed to protect life, health, and well-being.

How We Studied Climate Litigation Through a Public Health Lens

To evaluate the Intersection between Climate Change, Public Health, and International Law, we conducted a global review of documented climate litigation filed between 1990 and September 2020.

Scope of Analysis

• 1,641 total climate litigation cases identified

• Legal databases reviewed across jurisdictions

• Cases assessed for explicit or implicit public health framing

• 65 cases categorized as public health–linked climate litigation

We extracted structured data from case documents, including plaintiff, defendant, legal precedent, decision status, and the presence of health-related argumentation.

Key Findings from Three Decades of Climate Litigation

1. Climate Litigation Is Increasing Rapidly

Case numbers are trending upward, particularly in high-income countries. Over half remain pending, reflecting the recent surge in filings.

2. Public Health Framing Is Rare but Rising

Only 3.96% of cases explicitly centered on public health as part of the litigation strategy. While mentions of “health” are increasing, the public health lens remains underdeveloped in courtrooms.

3. Courts Are Receptive, but Reform Is Needed

Among the 65 health-linked cases:

• 11 resulted in the plaintiff winning

• 11 resulted in losses

• 43 remain undecided

Although courts demonstrate openness to public health science, structural legal reform is needed to ensure health evidence carries sufficient weight in adjudication.

International Legal Frameworks Shaping Climate Litigation

The Intersection between Climate Change, Public Health, and International Law operates within a complex legal architecture.

Global Climate Governance

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change acknowledged the global nature of climate change and the need for international cooperation.

The Paris Agreement, endorsed by 196 countries, emphasizes the right to health and outlines mitigation and adaptation commitments. However, enforcement mechanisms remain limited.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all ages”), reinforce health-centered development objectives—though they are not legally binding.

Human Rights and Environmental Law

International Environmental Law (IEL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) increasingly intersect in climate cases. Courts are asked to interpret:

• The right to life

• The right to health

• The right to a healthy environment

• Intergenerational equity principles

More than 80% of UN Member States now recognize the right to a healthy environment in law.

The Rise of Eco-Centric Legal Paradigms

Legal systems historically grounded in anthropocentric principles are beginning to evolve.

Countries including Ecuador, Bolivia, and Panama have adopted eco-centric frameworks granting rights to nature. France has passed legislation recognizing the crime of ecocide. These shifts reflect a broader reimagining of law beyond resource extraction toward ecological protection.

The key question moving forward:

Will eco-centric law integrate a clear public health mandate?

Embedding public health within eco-centric legal systems could ensure climate rulings systematically prioritize human and planetary well-being.

Climate Attribution Science and Legal Causation

Litigation depends on demonstrating causation. Advances in climate attribution science now allow courts to quantify proportional responsibility for extreme weather events and climate-related health impacts.

As attribution methodologies mature, they strengthen:

• Claims of foreseeability

• Demonstrations of negligence

• Quantification of attributable risk

• Economic valuation of health harms

Robust scientific evidence increases the likelihood that public health arguments will influence judicial reasoning.

Financial Systems, Liability, and Health Risk

The economic dimension of climate litigation is central to the intersection of climate change, public health, and international law.

Courts are increasingly asked to:

• Price the health impacts of pollution

• Evaluate financial disclosures on climate risk

• Assess corporate duty of care

• Consider investor activism strategies

Financial institutions, asset managers, and fossil fuel companies are facing mounting litigation. Market forces are gradually internalizing previously externalized public health costs.

The expectation that governments and corporations prioritize human health over short-term profit is rising, particularly following global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers to Access and Structural Limitations

Several limitations shape the current landscape:

• Western-centric case databases

• Limited documentation from certain jurisdictions

• Restricted access to subscription-based legal resources

• Underreporting of criminal climate litigation

These barriers may exacerbate climate injustice, particularly in low-income regions most vulnerable to climate-health harms.

Practical Recommendations for Legal and Public Health Stakeholders

To strengthen the role of public health within climate litigation, we recommend:

1. Initiate health-backed legal cases across jurisdictions

2. Advocate for eco-centric laws with explicit health mandates

3. Mobilize funding for climate-health attribution research

4. Integrate climate-health curricula in higher education

5. Establish environmental health expert panels for court testimony

Legal epidemiology (the study of law as a determinant of health) should expand into climate law to ensure legislation actively protects human well-being.

Conclusion: Repositioning Health at the Center of Climate Law

The legal field of environmental governance is undergoing rapid transformation. Courts can no longer dismiss the scientific consensus linking anthropogenic climate disruption to harm to human health.

Litigation offers a powerful mechanism to:

• Drive decarbonization

• Establish financial liability

• Protect vulnerable populations

• Advance intergenerational justice

However, the Intersection between climate change, public health, and international law will only reach its full potential if public health becomes central, not peripheral, to climate legal strategy.

Integrating health risk into economic cost structures, strengthening eco-centric legal paradigms, and mobilizing interdisciplinary expertise can shift legal systems toward a well-being–centered economy.

The future of climate litigation may ultimately depend on one fundamental principle:

The protection of planetary health is inseparable from the protection of human health.

The original report was done by Hannah Marcus, Co-Chair of our Environmental Health Working Group.