Paper short abstract:

The comparative analysis of some of the most recent African climate and broader environmental cases will show how African cases are "painted in different colors" (Setzer) and suggest ways to possibly "adjust the lens" (Peel & Lin) through which we view climate change litigation accordingly.

Paper long abstract:

Despite the growing number of high-profile climate cases in the Global South, some of which have received significant global attention (Leghari, 2015; Earthlife, 2017), the literature on Global South-focused climate change litigation is lacking, with Africa-focused climate litigation scholarship being even scarcer (Kotze, 2020).

According to specialized climate litigation databases, only 16 cases in Africa are currently recognized as climate change litigation, representing only 2.37% of the global number of climate cases and limited to the national jurisdictions of South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda (Grantham Research Institute).

Against these seemingly worrying numbers, this paper questions whether the category of "climate litigation" as it is currently framed resonates with African (and broader Global South) courts and whether it is able to capture their unique characteristics such as the "peripheral" focus of climate change in the arguments (Nachmany et al., 2017), the "dilution" of climate claims within broader environmental disputes (Peel & Osofsky, 2015), and their greater "human rights anchoring" (Peel & Osofsky, 2017), in a context where cases have different purposes and courts act in a different context from that of "model" Global North climate litigations, such as the landmark Urgenda or Juliana cases.

Through the comparative analysis of some of the most recent African climate and broader environmental cases, this paper will examine how African cases are "painted in different colors" (Setzer, 2019) and suggest ways to possibly "adjust the lens" (Peel & Lin, 2019) through which we view climate change litigation accordingly.