Can litigation against major carbon emitters deliver climate justice to vulnerable South Asian countries? Critically analyse.

Nepal emits under 0.1% of global greenhouse gases, yet its August 2026 floods killed at least 1,400 people [1]. Suing major emitters can advance climate justice by establishing responsibility, but it cannot deliver justice alone.

Where litigation advances climate justice

• State duty: The ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion affirmed a duty to prevent significant climate harm; compensation may follow a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus [2].
• Corporate liability: In Lliuya v RWE (2025), a German court accepted proportionate emitter liability in principle; distance from Peru alone did not defeat the claim [3].
• Rights basis: M.K. Ranjitsinh (2024) recognised a right against adverse climate effects under Articles 14 and 21 [4].
• Visibility: 3,099 cases filed worldwide by June 2025 have made climate accountability a live legal issue [5].

Where it falls short

• Causation: ICIMOD says attribution of the Rasuwa collapse to warming has not yet been done [6]; one defendant's share would still need proof.
• Standard of proof: Lliuya lost because the risk to his house was only about 1% over 30 years [3]; Nepal's victims have actual losses, but must link them to a defendant.
• Forum: Germany v Italy (2012) shows how State immunity can bar foreign civil suits, even over grave wrongs [7].
• Access: Only 305 recorded cases came from the Global South [5]; flood victims can rarely fund overseas suits.
• Double edge: South Asia's own large emitters could face similar claims.

Making justice deliverable

• Finance: Loss and Damage Fund pledges of about US$820 million [8] are dwarfed by Pakistan's roughly US$30 billion damage and losses in 2022 [9]; Nepal has applied [10].
• Evidence: Event-specific attribution studies, family-level loss records and shared Nepal–Pakistan legal strategy.
• Resilience: Nepal's proposed Himalayan mechanism for data sharing and early warning [1].

Litigation establishes responsibility more readily than it secures compensation. South Asia should use it as a pressure tool alongside funded loss-and-damage finance and regional resilience. Together, these can honour common but differentiated responsibilities and SDG 13.