6. Too Far Gone
Not all PIL can be successful. As Scottish poet Robert Burns observed in his poem ‘To a Mouse’, even the best-laid schemes of mice and men oft go awry. Nevertheless, a lack of success in a case can still prove to be of use. Unsuccessful PIL can influence and change behaviour of governments and the private sector. Unsuccessful climate litigation has prompted change in government and corporate behaviour.[1] Lessons can also be learnt from unsuccessful PIL for bringing successful PIL in the future, either in the same jurisdiction or other jurisdictions. The claims or arguments might be changed or refined, or different evidence adduced.[2] Unsuccessful PIL can also raise public awareness, effecting a change in social consciousness, which may in turn influence the behaviour of governments and the private sector.[3] In these ways, unsuccessful PIL is not too far gone; it just has further to go.
- Hari Osofsky, ‘The Continuing Importance of Climate Litigation’ (2010) 1 Climate Law 3–29; Brian J Preston, ‘The Influence of Climate Change Litigation on Governments and the Private Sector’ (2011) 2 Climate Law 485, 485–513. ↵
- Brian J Preston, ‘Changing Climate Law and Governance: A Multi-Level Perspective’ (2024) 15(S5) Global Policy 8–19, 11. ↵
- Brian J Preston, ‘The Role of Public Interest Environmental Litigation’ (2006) 23 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 337, 347–9. ↵
Jurisdiction refers to the scope of a court’s authority to decide matters. It comes from the Latin ‘juris’ (the law) and ‘dicto’ (to say or declare).
