Climate Justice in Asian Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and India
Identification
- Public canonical key
- doi:10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
- Authors
- Golam Sarwar · Faijul Islam · Md Mursalin · Forhad Hossain
- Reported year
- 2026
- Reported language
- en
- Source type
- article
- First detected
- 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
- Last metadata observation
- 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
- Last HTTP verification
- Not checked
Institutions reported by the source
Premier University · Prime University · University of Chittagong
Reported affiliation countries
BD
Documentary abstract — original language
It is a comparative research paper that gives a comprehensive analysis of the conceptualization, development and constitution of climate justice in the top judiciary of Bangladesh and India. Both South Asian countries are in the frontline of the global climate vulnerability crisis, and are experiencing a number of serious socio-ecological issues such as fast sea-level rise, soil salinization, increasing rate of glacial retreat in the Himalayas and occurrence of extreme weather events. Without a wide-ranging and legally binding domestic climate change law in place, both supreme courts have developed expansive environmental and climate constitutions through the prism of transformative constitutionalism. The present study documents the doctrinal evolution from the traditional environmentalism which was localised to a new kind of environmentalism – climate justice – through a comparative approach with reference to supranational cases. The present study shows the evolution of the doctrine from the traditional environmentalism which was localised to a new one of environmentalism / climate justice based on a comparative analysis of landmark cases at the supranational level. The Supreme Court of India in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), expressly incorporated a separate ‘right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change' in the constitution, which was stated to have been derived from the right to life (Article 21) and the right to equality (Article 14). The higher judiciary in Bangladesh has facilitated an anthropocentric environmentalism to an ecocentric jurisprudence, as seen in the Turag River Case (2019), which recognized all rivers as legal persons and living entities with independent rights. The study also assesses the effectiveness of the institutional level of specialized environmental tribunals and compares the working of the National Green Tribunal of India and the Environment Courts of Bangladesh. It brings into focus the legal invisibility of climate-displaced populations in the shared Sundarban delta; and the hydropolitical conflicts over the Ganges-BrahmaputraMeghna basin. Finally, the report looks at state and corporate accountability in landmark cases of resource extraction and industrial pollution and presents a list of recommendations for action to make environmental governance in the region more climate.
Identifiers
- OPENALEX
- W7204643645
- DOI
- 10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
Documentary context
- Documentary family
- Scholarship
- Source-reported types
- article
- Jurisdictions studied — explicit sources
- BD · IN
- Natural entities mentioned
- River · Sea
Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.
Sources
OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2
Documentary field provenance
Source-backed values and values with unresolved provenance are kept separately. Bibliographic provenance validates no legal claim.
- Title
- Documentary source reported
- Publication
- Documentary source reported
- Authors
- Documentary source reported
- Document type
- Documentary source reported
- Jurisdiction
- Studied subject derived from explicit documentary context
- Court
- Not recorded
- Issuing authority
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- DOI
- Documentary source reported
- ISBN
- Not recorded
- Official identifier
- Not recorded
- Source URL
- Documentary source reported
- Source-reported status
- Not recorded
- Amendment / repeal
- Not recorded
Cite this reference
Golam Sarwar; Faijul Islam; Md Mursalin; Forhad Hossain. Climate Justice in Asian Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and India. 2026. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
JSON · CSL-JSON · BibTeX · RIS · CSV · JSON-LD ·
APA, Chicago, ISO 690: bibliographic formats using available fields. OSCOLA / Bluebook: structured data only; full legal citation compliance is not claimed without verification of required elements.
- APA
- Golam Sarwar; Faijul Islam; Md Mursalin; Forhad Hossain. (2026). Climate Justice in Asian Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and India. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
- Chicago
- Golam Sarwar; Faijul Islam; Md Mursalin; Forhad Hossain. Climate Justice in Asian Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and India. 2026. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
- ISO 690
- Golam Sarwar; Faijul Islam; Md Mursalin; Forhad Hossain. Climate Justice in Asian Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and India. 2026. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
UDTR Global Rights of Nature Legal Library. Climate Justice in Asian Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and India. Documentary record: https://www.declarationuniverselledesdroitsdelarbre.org/global-rights-of-nature-radar/reference/r-1a5d64593ca1a8dfe84ebe433be5cd55/ · Last HTTP verification: not performed
Field provenance and record version
Version f7378401b7212654 · udtr-reference-1.1.2
- Title
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
- Authors
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
- Year
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
- Identifiers
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
- Source URL
- OpenAlex · source · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
History tracks record metadata and does not certify the state of the law.
3fdb6b02d5e6ad40 · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
3a6b225db112c55b · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
acf434680b9ecb22 · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
f7378401b7212654 · 2026-11-09T19:04:47.943243+00:00
Research dossiers and documentary relations
Source roles
Discovery source · https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800029
Discovery source · https://openalex.org/W7204643645
An authority link alone does not verify a legal claim. Abstracts and full texts remain subject to their source terms.
Documentary status
Relevance pending
Library
This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.