Law shapes reality.

Climate case are legal actions aimed at enforcing stronger climate protection. They target governments, corporations, or institutions and can push for more ambitious climate goals, stop environmentally harmful projects, or expose greenwashing. Their common core: using the law to fight the climate crisis.

Climate cases matter now more than ever because, in times of political instability and growing democratic crises, they serve as a clear instrument of justice. They are a safeguard against the erosion of democracy and a direct means of addressing the climate crisis, independent of political or economic interests.

Climate cases have proven political, economic, and legal impact. The IPCC’s 2022 report shows that they can push governments to adopt more ambitious climate targets and implement stronger measures. According to the Grantham Research Institute, climate cases also put pressure on corporations: cases against companies like Shell and BP have led to stock losses and increased caution around greenwashing.

Even cases that don’t succeed in court can make a difference. They draw attention, raise public awareness of the climate crisis, and set new legal and social precedents. Landmark rulings, such as Urgenda in the Netherlands, Neubauer et al. in Germany, and the Klimaseniorinnen case in Switzerland, show how courts can compel governments to take concrete climate action.

We use strategic climate cases to turn promises into action, making climate protection enforceable, not optional. In times of uncertainty and political hesitation, the law provides something rare: clarity, accountability, and real results.

Our cases give people a concrete way to stand up for what matters: security, fairness, and a healthy environment for the future. Those already feeling the impact of the climate crisis gain a voice and a tool to demand justice.

We stand for effective climate protection with a systematic approach. We identify specific problems, develop practical solutions, and enforce them through the power of law. In this way, climate justice is achieved step by step.

CLAW exists because many people believe that climate protection can be won in court. Our work is funded by donations from individuals and organizations who stand with us. To remain independent and effective, we are deliberately building a broad and stable financial base.

Because climate cases are a marathon and it’s one we can only win together.

You can find more details about our supporters here.

Climate cases aren’t an easy path, but it works. Every challenge shows where persistence is needed to make climate cases possible and to turn sufficient climate protection into reality.

1. High costs, but together, we can shoulder them

• Climate cases are demanding – legally, financially, and in time. Proceedings often take years and require significant resources. To ensure that justice doesn’t become a privilege, we rely on supporting memberships, institutional funders, and international collaboration. This collective approach secures access to the courts – even for those who couldn’t pursue a case on their own.
  
  Support our work: Every contribution strengthens climate protection through the power of law.

2. Difficult proof, but our case goes one step further

• Courts require concrete evidence that plaintiffs are personally and directly affected by climate impacts – one of the main legal hurdles that has caused many earlier cases to fail.
• With our climate case 'Müllner v. Austria', we aim to overcome this barrier. We combine the latest climate science with precise expert opinions to demonstrate how governmental inaction already causes measurable risks and damages – not in the distant future, but today.

3. New research provides evidence – but attribution remains complex

• One of the biggest challenges for climate cases is proving concrete responsibility for global harm. Causation is multi-layered, and the strength of evidence always depends on the latest state of research.
• Recent studies are making these connections clearer. They show which emissions from specific companies contribute to particular extreme events. For example, a recent analysis even links emissions from major oil companies directly to deadly heatwaves.
• This makes legal attribution increasingly possible – though it remains complex and requires constant alignment with the most up-to-date scientific findings.

Conclusion: Each case strengthens the foundation for those that follow – bringing the law step by step into line with the reality of the climate crisis. Together, we can build a legal system that protects what matters most.