Abigail Holt Published in JPIL: “International Law and Heath: We All Need to be Climate Lawyers Now”

Abigail Holt of the Garden Court Environmental Law & Climate Justice Team has been published in the Journal of Personal Injury Law (JPL) – issue 3 2026.

In the article: “International Law and Health: We All Need to Be Climate Lawyers Now”, Abigail explores climate litigation and the consequences to health & quality of life posed by climate change.

Read Abi’s precis below:

The climate crisis is also a health crisis
The origins of climate litigation – Netherlands v Urgenda [2015], where The Hague Court of Appeal applied the international law principle of common but differentiated responsibilities to commit the Netherlands to obtain a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 2020 as compared to 1990. Human rights are also a basis for enforceable climate duties, enforceable through quantified emission reductions. This principle has reverberated through international and domestic decisions ever since.

Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland
In the senior Swiss women case – Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland [2024] – the successful claimants argued that the Swiss authorities were not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change on them, despite their duties under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that art.8 ECHR encompasses a right to effective protection by State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion (AO) affirming that States have legal obligations to address climate change. Consequently, the AO provides authoritative clarification of the international legal responsibilities of States & specifically obligations: to reduce GHGs; to implement adaption measures to safeguard individuals from climate-related impacts; & to provide reparations for damage caused by climate change. The AO is likely to shape climate-related litigation, legislation and diplomacy in coming years.

The ICJ recognised the overwhelming scientific evidence of, and existential threat posed by, climate change to both nature & humanity & the urgent need to address the adverse effects of global warming. The AO says explicitly that human life & health are also at risk, with an increased incidence of heat-related illnesses and the spread of climate-related diseases. These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.

Greenpeace Netherlands v The State of the Netherlands (“Bonaire”) January 2026
Public health threats to Bonaire are likely to elevate the risk of physical & mental disorders due to heat-related stress and food insecurity which will lead to an increase in disease transmitted by vectors such as mosquitoes, whilst damage to infrastructure is likely to undermine access to healthcare. Applying Urgenda, Klimaseniorinnen and the ICJ’s ruling, the first instance court in The Hague held that the Netherlands had failed to fulfil its positive obligations under arts 8 and 14 of the ECHR and art.1 of Protocol 12.

New Zealand: Smith v Fonterra
The “climatization” of tort law and the New Zealand Supreme Court interlocutory decision of Smith v Fonterra. Mr Smith, Māori, resisted a strike out application against 7 Defendants from whom he sought a declaration that the respondents (all companies which emit, or supply products which release GHGs) had contributed to the climate crisis & caused damage to his “whenua and moana”, including damage to places of customary, cultural, historical, nutritional and spiritual significance to Mr Smith and his whānau.

He also applied for injunctions to stop the climate-damaging activities. Mr Smith raised three causes of action in tort. His claim was based on public nuisance and negligence. But he also proposed a new tort, a “climate system damage” tort involving a duty, cognisable at law consisting of “damage to the climate system; dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; & relating to the adverse effects of climate change” and that the respondents should cease materially contributing to such adverse effects on the climate.

The current NZ Administration seem so rattled by Mr Smith’s case that they have amended the law to prevent this case and others like it being decided by the NZ Courts; a saga which will no doubt continue.

Read the full article by subscribing to the journal here.