Abstract
While there is scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change, also reflected in international agreements and EU norms obliging states to reduce GHG emissions, domestic legislation has been slow or imperfect in implementing reduction duties. Although climate litigation is not a new phenomenon, a specific strand of climate litigation is now gaining impetus owing to the success garnered in Urgenda and the Klimabeschluss: litigation focusing on states’ omitting to lawfully regulate emission targets. This paper presents the context of novel climate litigation in the face of Russian aggression and the ensuing disincentives to promote ambitious reduction goals, proceeding to describe the arguments and findings in the two landmark cases and their effects on future climate litigation as seen in the example of the climate petition pending before the Hungarian Constitutional Court.