People displaced by climate-related disasters are not passive recipients of aid or policy decisions. They are taking strategic legal action to secure their rights and hold States accountable in domestic, regional and international forums.

Individuals and communities across the world are using the law strategically to avoid being displaced or to pursue dignified lives in the aftermath of displacement. Legal action is becoming a critical tool to address systemic exclusions and promote equitable adaptation responses, and is particularly impactful when civil society collaborates under the guidance of directlyimpacted communities. Drawing on the Climate Mobility Case (CMC) Database [i] and complementary jurisprudence, this article highlights judicial and quasi-judicial decisions from around the world and analyses how individuals and communities are taking action to:

Avoid being displaced or hold States accountable for failing to prevent climate-related displacement;
Secure protection of their rights during evacuation and throughout displacement; and
Facilitate durable solutions to displacement.

In different cases, we see how international human rights law, domestic constitutions, and administrative and land law are being used by individuals and communities. We also see how litigation must go hand-in-hand with other initiatives such as policy reform, advocacy and intersectional community-led organising to ensure that legal victories translate into meaningful protection and lasting change.

Prevention of displacement

Displacement is a harm, and in many contexts a form of violence that also contributes to other harms undermining people’s safety, dignity and wellbeing. Many communities are therefore doing everything possible to avoid being displaced.

Faced with imminent displacement from their ancestral homelands, the 27 founding members of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) mobilised to secure an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on State obligations in the face of climate change. Through sustained media campaigns and subsequent legal submissions by States, this initiative platformed the voices of communities already (and soon to be) displaced. In July 2025 this led to a landmark ruling by the ICJ that States have an international legal obligation to prevent harm to the climate system and make reparations to injured States. This ruling will undoubtedly influence decision-making around future greenhouse gas emissions, as well as how frontline communities are supported in making the choice to move or stay. In the meantime, affected communities have been bringing specific claims to international, regional and national courts, with mixed results.

In Daniel Billy v Australia, Indigenous Torres Straits Islanders argued that Australia was failing to support adequate climate adaptation measures, leaving the community exposed to sea level rise, storms and flooding. The UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s limited investment in adaptation meant that the community might be forced to relocate to mainland Australia. This relocation would deprive the community of their right to practise their culture, which is intimately tied to the land, resulting in a violation of Articles 17 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Although Australia’s reply to the decision highlights funding commitments for numerous new adaptation initiatives, subsequent domestic litigation by Torres Straits Islanders in the Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia case indicates that Islanders continue to experience climate-related displacement risk.

Related cases in the CMC Database demonstrate the difficulties in securing positive outcomes. In Guyo v Kenya Electricity Generating Company PLC, the Environment and Land Court at Malindi, Kenya, dismissed a claim brought by a Member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents and others who were displaced when dam operators on the Tana River released excess water during heavy rains. In that case, the Court considered that multiple other factors contributed to the displacement of communities and did not consider the dam operators to be negligent in either design or in the release of water. Similarly, in Lekulai & 90 others v Attorney General & 3 others, the High Court of Kenya dismissed the claim by members of the Ilchamus community who had been repeatedly displaced by flooding. The Court considered that the flood was the result of an Act of God and found that delivery of humanitarian relief in the aftermath was sufficient conduct for the State to discharge its duty to the community.

Communities also pursue legal action when the state is directly responsible for their displacement. In Pakistan, which has repeatedly experienced catastrophic flooding and associated displacement of millions of residents, strengthening urban flood protection is a priority. Yet, when the Supreme Court instructed the National Disaster Management Authority to clear all informal settlements alongside waterways leading into and out of Karachi, nearly 100,000 were forcibly evicted. Many had been resident for decades and some had an entitlement to the land. Their case was raised by a group of UN Special Rapporteurs in a 2021 communication to the government of Pakistan[ii], but a 2024 in-depth report by Human Rights Watch[iii] suggests that, notwithstanding the strong human rights basis requiring the government to remedy the forced evictions, limited action has been taken and people remain displaced.

Protection during evacuation and displacement

The cases highlighted above demonstrate that legal action may sometimes result in a judicial finding that requires States to take action to prevent displacement, and in principle, may hold States accountable for failures to do so. However, with well over 45 million disaster displacements in 2024 recorded by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre[iv], the experience is widespread and growing. Some litigation aims to enhance protection of people during evacuation and throughout displacement. In Budayeva & Others v Russian Federation, families of people killed in the July 2000 mudslide that devastated the mountain community of Tyrnauz argued that Russia’s failure to invest in protective infrastructure – including early warning systems and evacuation preparedness – resulted in a violation of the right to life. This case affirms the duty of States to take steps to prevent foreseeable harm and highlights how short-term displacement in the form of evacuation can, if carried out effectively, reduce exposure to harm.

Critically, Article 11 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as domestic law in many countries, requires states to address the specific situation of persons with disabilities in emergency situations. In this context, a precedent can be found in the legal action taken by California Independent Living Centers against the City of Oakland and others in relation to disaster preparedness plans that failed to adequately address the particular situation of persons with disabilities. The legal action led authorities to engage in a broad consultative process that resulted in a plan that improved support, through accessible early warning systems, a Geographic Information System (GIS) to facilitate emergency evacuation, the identification of 20 accessible emergency shelters, and the designation of a Shelter Functional Needs Coordinator. This and other improvements enabled the litigants to settle the case against the city without the need for a Court judgment.

Litigation that takes place in the aftermath of displacement may not remedy harm already experienced, but can lead to improvements in law, policy and practice. A series of cases brought by affected persons to the Colombian Constitutional Court has progressively expanded legal protection to people internally displaced in the context of disasters, building on the country’s IDP framework, established during decades-long armed conflict. In Sentencia T-123 [2024], the Colombian Constitutional Court found in favour of claimants who had been displaced by flooding of the Bojabá River but were denied recognition as displaced peoples and were denied state aid comparable to that of people displaced by violence. The Court urged Congress to create comprehensive legislation for environmental displacement, drawing from the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

Durable solutions

Affected communities are increasingly asserting the right to stay in their homes, and international frameworks on displacement recognise that durable solutions must safeguard voluntary, informed choice – including the ability to stay, as well as the option to relocate. As the climate emergency gathers momentum, however, it is clear that millions of people will lose their homes forever to rising sea levels, wildfires, recurrent flooding, droughts or storms. The extent of a State’s legal obligation to facilitate relocation of communities is not settled but is a question of increasing salience. With one study counting over 400 community relocations worldwide[v], and extensive accounts of harms resulting from poorly planned moves, legal action can help to clarify State obligations in this context, whilst also addressing immediate community priorities.

A series of Romanian cases have addressed the obligations of the State to address legal security of tenure for relocated people. In these cases the State was directly responsible for the need for people to relocate, as their homes were exposed to subsidence risk resulting from mining activity. Domestic law required the State to grant legal security of tenure to families who had been living for decades in homes it had provided.

In the US, legal action has been undertaken by Indigenous communities to secure Federal Government support to relocate. The case against the government was articulated by a group of UN Special Rapporteurs in 2020[vi] and to date has not received a response from the authorities. The Alaskan communities seeking relocation continue to face serious impacts from sea level rise and melting permafrost, while some Louisiana residents from Isle de Jean Charles have been relocated. However, reports highlight the community’s limited role in relocation planning, and the exclusion of many former residents. Further, the site itself lies in a flood plain and adjacent to an oil rig maintenance facility, revealing ongoing tensions.^[vii]

Lessons learned

The cases discussed in this article highlight several important lessons on how the law is being used to address the harms communities experience due to climate-related displacement and adaptation measures.

First, affected communities are not passive victims but agents of change. They are using domestic, regional and international legal systems to resist displacement, secure protection, and pursue durable solutions. From landmark international cases like the ICJ advisory opinion, to litigation in Kenya, Norway, Colombia, and beyond, communities are using the law strategically to challenge state inaction, demand recognition of rights, and shape adaptation in more inclusive and equitable ways.

Second, litigation can compel governments to confront their obligations, whether through immediate reforms – as in California’s adoption of accessible evacuation and shelter plans – or through gradual policy reform and broader systemic change, such as the national legislation that will be implemented following the Constitutional Court of Colombia’s rulings.

Third, legal strategies are most impactful when grounded in leadership by affected communities and supported by broad coalitions of civil society, lawyers and grassroots organisations. Grounding legal action in the experiences and expertise of frontline communities makes it a tool not only for protection and justice but also for empowering those most affected to shape their futures.

Fourth, notwithstanding success in court, communities often continue to face harm associated with displacement even years after the judgment. Many cases documented in the CMC Database reveal the limits of the law in securing truly transformative outcomes. Implementation is often delayed, partial or symbolic. Structural inequality, a lack of political will and under-resourced legal systems often stand in the way of translating judgments into lived change. Overcoming these barriers requires pairing litigation with broader social, political and institutional strategies that centre the leadership of frontline groups.

Such strategies must also drive shifts in public narratives, strengthen government implementation and build renewed political will. Refugee-, Indigenous-, and community-led organisations play a vital role – through intersectional advocacy, they can bridge gaps in legal and policy frameworks, connect communities with policymakers, and mobilise collective voices. Centring the perspectives of marginalised groups helps ensure outcomes reflect lived realities and address the distinct vulnerabilities that climate-related displacement often exacerbates.

Even when rulings are unfavourable, they often build public pressure and lay the groundwork for future claims. In that sense, legal action is not only about winning in court, it is also about asserting presence, agency and resistance in a world that often systemically denies displaced communities those rights.

Ultimately, climate-related displacement is not only an environmental or humanitarian challenge but a justice issue. As the climate crisis deepens, legal action will remain a vital pathway for communities to assert their rights, challenge exclusion and demand that adaptation be equitable, participatory, and grounded in dignity. Those who go to court – often at personal cost – should be recognised not just as litigants, but as leaders in the global struggle for climate justice.

Bella Mosselmans
Executive Director, Global Strategic Litigation Council

linkedin.com/in/bella-mosselmans/

Matthew Scott
Senior Researcher and Leader of the Human Rights and the Environment thematic area, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

linkedin.com/in/matthewscott111/

Yumna Kamel
Co-Founder and Executive Director

Earth Refuge
linkedin.com/in/yumna-kamel/

Anila Noor
Managing Director, New Women Connectors

linkedin.com/in/anila-noor

[i] https://www.global-council.org/climate-database

[ii] Communication to Pakistan Concerning ongoing evictions and home demolitions along Karachi’s waterways (nullahs), 2022

[iii] Abusive Forced Evictions in Pakistan, report by Human Rights Watch, 2024

[iv] 2025 Global Report on Internal Displacement

[v] Global Mapping: Leaving Place, Restoring Home, Bower and Weerasinghe

[vi] Communication Concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples in addressing Climate-forced displacement

^[vii] The Center for Public Integrity (2022) ‘Leaving the island: The messy, contentious reality of climate relocation’