The New Zealand government's proposed law to block climate change lawsuits against companies raises questions about its consistency with international climate commitments, including a recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion it endorsed.
Landmark Climate Case at Risk
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, introduced under urgency and passed its first reading in parliament, would prevent companies from being sued for damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions. It applies to both current and future cases, effectively ending a historic lawsuit brought by iwi leader and climate activist Mike Smith against major companies including Fonterra and Z Energy.
Smith alleges these companies have materially contributed to the climate crisis, causing harm to his whenua and moana—places of cultural, spiritual and historical significance. The Supreme Court in 2024 ruled his claims, including public nuisance, negligence and a novel tort of "climate system damage," deserved to be tested at trial, scheduled for April 2027. The bill would stop that trial before it begins.
International Commitments Questioned
New Zealand supported a Vanuatu-led initiative at the United Nations that resulted in a 2023 resolution requesting an ICJ advisory opinion on states' climate obligations. The ICJ delivered its unanimous opinion in 2025, finding states have obligations to protect the climate system and may face legal consequences for failure. Critically, the court stated states may be responsible if they fail to regulate private entities' emissions.
"Removing an individual's ability to sue companies over climate damage could be seen as weakening one possible check and balance on emissions caused by private actors," according to legal observers. The government argues climate policy should be decided by elected officials and existing laws to ensure "legal clarity and certainty" for businesses.
Timing and Contradictions
Just eight days after announcing the proposed law change in May, New Zealand voted with 140 other countries at the UN to endorse the ICJ's advisory opinion. Parliament also declared a climate emergency in 2020. Yet domestically, the government is closing off a legal pathway for holding major emitters accountable.
Smith has filed fresh proceedings in the High Court seeking a declaration that the government's decision to introduce the law change—and the process behind it—were unlawful. The case continues to be one of New Zealand's most historic legal battles.
Broader Implications
The proposed amendment is about more than one lawsuit. It raises fundamental questions about whether New Zealand's domestic climate policy aligns with its international commitments. Climate science requires rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions this decade. Preventing courts from hearing climate cases risks leaving New Zealand's laws out of step with the international principles it has supported, potentially affecting accountability for future generations.
