UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

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

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.3329/rulr.v14i1.94450

Auteurs

Mst Asma Mahmud

Année déclarée

2026

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

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

Dernière observation des métadonnées

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

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

University of Rajshahi

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

BD

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

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

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W7222985948

DOI

10.3329/rulr.v14i1.94450

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Juridictions étudiées — sources explicites

AU · BD · CO · PK · US

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

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

Statut documentaire

Publication académique détectée

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.