We are certainly seeing more courts worldwide issuing judgments in favour of protecting the climate. The recent example of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz saw the European Court of Human Rights hold that the right to a private life imposes a positive obligation on states to ensure effective protection against the adverse effects of climate change. It was the first time an international court had definitively ruled on the intersection between climate and human rights.

In addition, Friends of the Earth, Client Earth and Good Law Project vs Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero saw the UK High Court rule that the UK government’s climate strategy was not fit-for-purpose and so was in breach of the UK Climate Change Act.  We have also seen the US case of  Held v Montana, in which the court found in favour of protecting the constitutional right to a healthy environment, and the French ruling, in Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v France, that the state needs to take immediate action to comply with commitments to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement; the international treaty on climate change that was adopted in 2015.

Then there’s the Supreme Court of India’s ground-breaking ruling that recognised a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, and South Korea’s constitutional court currently hearing the country's first major climate litigation. There is certainly a move to the courts when it comes to the environment.

The future of ESG litigation is an intriguing proposition. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea recently confirmed that states are under a legal obligation to protect our oceans and seas from climate change. This includes a commitment to restore habitats and ecosystems where they have been damaged due to anthropogenic (man-made) emissions, and where restoration is needed to regain ecological balance. States are even under an obligation to anticipate risks to the marine environment that may be created by climate change.

At present, the world is currently awaiting the outcome of further requests for advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These bodies’ interpretations of states’ climate change obligations will not be binding, in the same way as the International Tribunal for the  Sea opinion was not binding.  But their opinions on matters such as protection of the marine environment, human rights and the environment, and greenhouse gases will carry substantial legal weight. They may be decisive in defining the human rights obligations of states (and possibly corporations) regarding the climate crisis.

Against this backdrop, we can also expect an increase in climate-related litigation against non-financial institutions and a more diverse range of corporate actors. Cases based on the principle of polluter pays and citing the Paris Agreement could become more commonplace. Claims based on tort law, action brought under corporate due diligence legislation, use of consumer protection and competition law, and challenges to directors over breaches of fiduciary duties under company law are all viable options for those looking to hold to account companies or individuals.

But there are hurdles to be overcome by those looking to bring such cases. The most prominent of these is that rights enshrined in constitutions and regional conventions impose obligations on the state but not on private actors. In many jurisdictions, powerful constitutional rights, most notably the right to a healthy environment, can be asserted vertically against the State but not horizontally against private actors.

The issue of insufficient direct legal rights and procedural Issues is a serious challenge to those looking to bring ESG cases. This applies both to the aforementioned climate-related issues as well as to other matters such as greenwashing, modern slavery and poor health and safety in supply chains.

English law needs to adapt to the complexities of group litigation. The current arrangements can make bringing action an unbelievably challenging exercise in paperwork, while also giving scope to corporate defendants to do what they can to avoid having to answer for their actions. It is proposed that the UK needs a legal framework for human rights and environmental violations, modelled on the Bribery Act 2010 and Criminal Finances Act 2017; which contain failure to prevent offences.

There can be little argument that something needs to be done. Currently, applicants are usually the ones having to shoulder the burden of proof while up against corporates that can boast large legal teams who face few obligations to disclose information that could be crucial to the case. This has been why a number of claims have been unsuccessful. Added to this, the often slow pace of such proceedings can mean that the harm to people or the environment that is at the heart of the legal action can continue unchecked for long periods of time.

Applicants will often struggle to raise the funds to bring a legal action. Even if they do manage this, they then face the daunting prospect of having to keep finding funds to keep it going. All this has to be done while their opponent is likely to be a sizeable company that can find all the money that is necessary to thwart the case. It is a far from level playing field, which probably explains why the biggest UK group litigation – relating to the Mariana Dam disaster case – required third-party litigation financing.

As a result, many individuals have extremely limited access to justice, which can often only serve to perpetuate injustice. So while we can see signs of progress, much needs to be done to ensure such advances do not remain the exception rather than the rule.

The Classified documents case against Donald Trump has been dismissed.

This is a huge win for Donald Trump in the election run up as Presidential candidate just days after the attempt on his life.

When Donald Trump left the Whitehouse in 2021 they later found he was mishandling classified documents taking them with him to his new residence. Falling under the Espionage Act which could have resulted in a prison sentence.

The former President pleaded guilty to all charges despite classified documents being found in his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Why was the case dismissed?

It was Judge, Aileen Cannon who dismissed these charges as she ruled that the special counsel who brought the prosecution had been improperly appointed. This violated the Appointments clause of the US constitution as the special counsel appointed, Jack Smith had not been named to his post by the president or confirmed by the Senate.

This meant the court could not move further with this case and this comes at a great time as Donald Trump is set to nominate his choice for Vice-president if their party win the US election.

Jack Smith could appeal this and the Supreme Court could determine the lawfulness of his appointment leading them back to a trial.

Earlier this year Donald Trump was found guilty of fraud with the sentencing trial set for September. Donald Trump's legal complications does not seem to be affecting his election run and now with this victory today he could be seeing a further spike in support.

In the past we have seen political violence growing in numbers as well as supporters and instigators. Over the weekend we heard, what is being considered the most serious assassination attempt on a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Raegan was shot in 1981. The FBI are calling the crime a potential domestic terrorism act.

The suspect, Thomas Matthew Crook was 20 years old using a gun which was registered to his father. He was positioned on the top of a building nearby the rally as Donald Trump was speaking he was shot which grazed his ear leaving him bloody but mostly unharmed. The suspect was shot on the scene and unfortunately has caused the death of one man and left 2 injured.

The reaction

President Joe Biden has commented on the shooting calling it ‘sick’ and calls for a shift in language being used towards the candidate and condemns any political violence.

Global leaders have spoken out as well sending Mr Trump well wishes and thoughts to the victims of the shooting all reiterating that violence has no place in politics. This includes the Prime minister of England - Keir Starmer, Canadian President - Justin Trudeau, Ukrainian President - Volodymyr Zelensky, French President – Emanuel Macron and many more.

Moments of Political Violence

Political violence has grown especially over the past 5 years studies show. Those in politics are at a high risk of a targeted attack similar to the examples below.

• In 2011 a representative of Arizona, Gabrielle Gifford was attending a meet and greet at a grocery store where she was shot in the head. 6 people were killed from this attack, Gifford survived and now allocates her time to fighting against gun violence and promotes for new gun laws in the US.

• In 2017, members of the Republican congressional baseball team were targeted where 5 were injured.

• In 2020 there was a record high number of election administrators who received threats. This included a kidnapping scheme against the Democratic Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitner. This was uncovered along with the groups bomb making supplies and surveillance of Whitner.

• Also in 2020 an executive at Dominion Voting Systems, Eric Coomer was forced into hiding after mass amount of threats as well as his home address, phone number being released and a bounty placed on his head. Trump supporters believed the votes had been tampered with and took criminal action against those at Dominion Voting Systems.

• In 2021 Trump supporters protested the moment Joe Biden was sworn into office. This quickly led to a mob of attackers many being armed swarming the Capitol building smashing windows. This resulted in 7 deaths and 140 people injured.

Why?

• The US is facing a time of unrest leading to violence as people feel a loss of control over their country as well as growing feeling that force is the only way to get what they want as the two side compete. Both Republicans and Democrats have stated their no tolerance for political violence and their could potentially be a need for a new direction of this election steering away from the highly competitive focus.

• With conspiracy theories running over social media and large groups of people able to engage and connect this way it encourages radical ideas to turn into action. Comments online sit on the fence of threats and violence being swept under the rug as it’s just a joke online.

• Data from the Global Terrorism database and FBI statistics show that incidents from the left wing are rising in numbers however those from the right wing still overshadow and take up a large majority of political violence acts. Those committing political violence are often found to be planned moments from well established members of a community.

• Robert Pape a professor of political science at the University of Chicago specialises in International security affairs conducted a survey to find out what 270m American think about political violence. He found that 5-10% of adults were supporting political violence to restore Donald Trump to the presidency. Now, they also found that 10%, that it 26million adults support the use of force to prevent Donald Trump returning to presidency.

• The lack of gun control in the US also gives people with violent tendencies and ideologies to have access to a lethal weapon and a way to cause damage.