Understanding how pursuing public climate goals through private processes and actors affects normative commitments to and substantive achievement of North–South climate justice is urgent. The relative role of private actors in climate policy, governance and accountability mechanisms is expanding rapidly. As it has become increasingly clear that implementation of climate policy is falling far short of meeting the Paris Agreement goals, civil society has prevailed on the private sector to adopt climate commitments and engage in private climate governance. And states are using public law and policy to enhance and support private climate governance through green procurement policies, mandatory sustainability or climate disclosure requirements, and similar policies. And, as the impacts of climate change manifest with devastating regularity, in parallel to discussions between states about compensation for loss and damage, efforts to directly impose accountability on private climate actors are proliferating. Most notably, plaintiffs are suing corporate entities directly for climate damages.Private climate governance and efforts to impose corporate climate accountability have the potential to obscure, erase, and even undermine public commitments to common but differentiated responsibilities and North-South climate justice. This article critically examines one aspect of private climate accountability by using a North-South climate justice lens to evaluate efforts to obtain compensation (court-ordered damages) for climate harms directly from private actors, in particular United States of America (US) carbon majors, alleged to have contributed to climate change (climate damage cases). The article begins by providing background information about global climate change litigation and the US climate damage cases. It then explains why suits seeking climate damages brought by plaintiffs from the Global South, including India, could be less likely to result in the award of enforceable damages against an important subset of particularly culpable and well-resourced defendants, US fossil fuel companies. The application of the doctrines of forum non conveniens and judgment recognition and enforcement by federal courts reticent to disturb the climate policy prerogative of the political branches stand as potential obstacles to recovery for Global South climate plaintiffs. Having shown how and why Global South plaintiffs are less likely to be able to obtain court-ordered compensation directly from US fossil fuel companies that have contributed significantly to climate change and resulting harms, the article concludes by highlighting the climate justice deficits created by differential access to court-ordered compensation from US fossil fuel companies for plaintiffs in the Global North and Global South.

North–South climate justice and private climate accountability

期刊论文
发表日期：

2025年6月1日

查看全文

Katrina Fischer Kuh

摘要

Understanding how pursuing public climate goals through private processes and actors affects normative commitments to and substantive achievement of North–South climate justice is urgent. The relative role of private actors in climate policy, governance and accountability mechanisms is expanding rapidly. As it has become increasingly clear that implementation of climate policy is falling far short of meeting the Paris Agreement goals, civil society has prevailed on the private sector to adopt climate commitments and engage in private climate governance. And states are using public law and policy to enhance and support private climate governance through green procurement policies, mandatory sustainability or climate disclosure requirements, and similar policies. And, as the impacts of climate change manifest with devastating regularity, in parallel to discussions between states about compensation for loss and damage, efforts to directly impose accountability on private climate actors are proliferating. Most notably, plaintiffs are suing corporate entities directly for climate damages.

Private climate governance and efforts to impose corporate climate accountability have the potential to obscure, erase, and even undermine public commitments to common but differentiated responsibilities and North-South climate justice. This article critically examines one aspect of private climate accountability by using a North-South climate justice lens to evaluate efforts to obtain compensation (court-ordered damages) for climate harms directly from private actors, in particular United States of America (US) carbon majors, alleged to have contributed to climate change (climate damage cases). The article begins by providing background information about global climate change litigation and the US climate damage cases. It then explains why suits seeking climate damages brought by plaintiffs from the Global South, including India, could be less likely to result in the award of enforceable damages against an important subset of particularly culpable and well-resourced defendants, US fossil fuel companies. The application of the doctrines of forum non conveniens and judgment recognition and enforcement by federal courts reticent to disturb the climate policy prerogative of the political branches stand as potential obstacles to recovery for Global South climate plaintiffs. Having shown how and why Global South plaintiffs are less likely to be able to obtain court-ordered compensation directly from US fossil fuel companies that have contributed significantly to climate change and resulting harms, the article concludes by highlighting the climate justice deficits created by differential access to court-ordered compensation from US fossil fuel companies for plaintiffs in the Global North and Global South.