UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

Adaptation-Based Climate Litigation and Climate Justice: A Comparative Legal Analysis with Special Reference to Bangladesh

Identification

Public canonical key

doi:10.3329/rulr.v14i1.94450

Authors

Mst Asma Mahmud

Reported year

2026

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-09T19:04:47.802405+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-09T19:04:47.802405+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Institutions reported by the source

University of Rajshahi

Reported affiliation countries

BD

Documentary abstract — original language

The increasing impacts of climate change have exposed significant gaps in adaptation responses at both the global and national levels. International climate law has historically placed greater emphasis on mitigation than adaptation. This imbalance is particularly significant for highly vulnerable countries such as Bangladesh. The objective of this article is to examine what constitutes Adaptation-Based Climate Litigation (ABCL). How does ABCL differ from mitigation-based climate litigation? And how can ABCL be used to enforce adaptation duties and advance climate justice? The study is qualitative in nature and employs legal doctrinal and comparative legal methods. It analyses ABCL jurisprudence in the United States, Australia, Pakistan, Colombia, and Bangladesh. The analysis considers constitutional, statutory, and human-rights claims and compares the cases based on their legal basis, remedies sought, judicial approach, and contribution to climate justice. The findings of the study show that ABCL is becoming a significant mechanism for bridging policy gaps, amplifying marginalised voices, and promoting accountability in climate governance, and courts are increasingly translating adaptation policies into enforceable duties by interpreting the constitution. In Bangladesh, Articles 31, 32, and 18A provide important constitutional foundations for adaptation-related claims. However, concerns about judicial competence, the political question doctrine and the separation of powers may limit the effectiveness of judicial intervention in climate claims. The study also demonstrates that ABCL can advance distributive, procedural, recognitional, intergenerational, and remedial dimensions of climate justice. The study concludes that ABCL can strengthen state accountability for adaptation failures and its effectiveness is likely to increase when supported by legislative reform, specialised climate tribunals, and participatory enforcement mechanisms. Rajshahi Uni. Law Rev.Vol. XIV, 2025; p97-117

Identifiers

OPENALEX

W7222985948

DOI

10.3329/rulr.v14i1.94450

Documentary context

Documentary family

Scholarship

Source-reported types

article

Jurisdictions studied — explicit sources

AU · BD · CO · PK · US

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.3329/rulr.v14i1.94450
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7222985948

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.