Climate Change Litigation in Japan

A Short Overview of Japanese Characteristics within International Trends with Focus on Administrative Cases

Abstract

Climate change is a worldwide problem that has found its way into courts of law all over the world. In Japan, too, there have been several instances of climate change litigation, both civil as well as administrative. So far, these have all been regarding the construction and/or operation of new coal-fired power plants. One case recently (decision from 9 March 2023) even reached Japan’s highest court, the Supreme Court, which has led to a much higher presence of climate change litigation in Japanese media. However, all the cases of climate change litigation in Japan so far have not been successful. The article at hand provides a short overview of climate change litigation in Japan first explaining the situation of GHG emissions in Japan and introducing international agreements as well as national legislation. After that, it explains the general characteristics of climate change litigation and briefly introduces the Japanese cases. Detailed discussions of the administrative cases litigated in Japan so far, the Kōbe Case and the Yokosuka Case, follow. The second part of the article identifies the characteristics of the Japanese cases in the international context and thereby introduces international landmark climate change cases before comparing the Japanese cases to them. Although no plaintiffs in climate change litigation in Japan have succeeded so far, that may change. In particular, establishing plaintiffs’ standing to sue over GHG emissions is a point that still needs further discussion in academia as well as by courts of law. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether Japanese courts will be less reluctant to render decisions on highly political issues in the future. Cases in Germany and the Netherlands have shown that courts can take a very different approach. However, those cases have been very different from the Japanese cases in terms of the matters litigated and the kinds of arguments plaintiffs have sought to make. Time will tell how Japanese courts will decide in comparable cases.