COP26 Outcomes and Challenges for International Law

After COP26, accountability became one of the dominant themes of global climate politics. John Kerry described the conference as opening a “new era of accountability,” echoing similar statements by the United Nations Secretary-General and COP26 Climate Champions.

Yet many civil society groups and developing states viewed COP26 more critically, warning of a widening credibility gap between ambitious climate promises and actual implementation. Governments and corporations increasingly announce net-zero targets and climate pledges, but enforcement remains weak. Catherine Higham argues that domestic legal systems may be essential in turning international promises into meaningful accountability.

Accountability Under the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement created several mechanisms intended to monitor state climate action:

• Enhanced Transparency Framework (Article 13): requires biennial reporting on progress toward national climate targets.

• Global Stocktake (Article 14): collective review of progress toward shared goals.

• Implementation and Compliance Committee (Article 15): facilitates compliance and addresses systemic implementation challenges.

These systems were deliberately designed as facilitative, non-punitive, and cooperative, relying more on trust, peer review, and shared ambition than legal sanctions.

This helped secure broad participation in Paris. However, as trust erodes, many now question whether transparency alone is enough.

Domestic Legal Systems as the Next Layer of Accountability

Because the Paris Agreement uses a “bottom-up” model—allowing states to determine their own national contributions—it creates strong incentives for domestic political and legal oversight.

According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment database on climate laws:

• More than 300 domestic laws and policies in nearly 100 countries contain emissions targets.

• Around two-thirds were introduced after Paris in 2015.

• Nearly 50 countries have adopted climate framework legislation.

These laws often establish:

• emissions reduction targets

• net-zero goals

• reporting duties

• oversight bodies

• long-term climate strategies

Examples include:

• Canada’s Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (2021)

• Fiji’s Climate Change Act

• Uganda’s National Climate Change Act

However, Higham notes that many such laws still rely mainly on transparency and planning duties rather than real sanctions for non-compliance.

Climate Litigation as Enforcement

Where legislation is weak, courts are increasingly being asked to hold governments accountable.

By May 2021, at least 37 systemic climate cases had been filed globally challenging inadequate government action.

Examples include:

• France case Notre Affaire à Tous v France – failure to meet past targets

• France case Commune de Grande-Synthe v France – inadequacy of future measures

These lawsuits seek judicial review of whether governments are doing enough to meet their legal and climate obligations.

While many have succeeded, results remain uncertain because of issues such as:

• standing

• justiciability

• causation

• separation of powers concerns

Higham argues that stronger legislation would provide clearer standards and more reliable accountability than litigation alone.

Holding Corporations Accountable

COP26 also highlighted the growing role of non-state actors, especially companies and financial institutions.

Initiatives such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero and the Race to Zero attracted major attention.

However, concerns remain that many corporate net-zero commitments are vague or misleading. Reviews found that many targets:

• lack board-level oversight

• rely heavily on offsets

• exclude supply-chain emissions

• lack credible transition plans

Domestic legal systems are beginning to intervene. One example cited is litigation against Santos Limited over claims about achieving net-zero emissions by 2040.

Another landmark example is Milieudefensie v Shell, where Dutch courts ordered Shell plc to reduce emissions more rapidly.

Why Domestic Law Matters

Higham’s central point is that international climate law sets norms, but domestic systems often provide the harder tools of enforcement:

• legislation

• administrative review

• judicial remedies

• sanctions

• disclosure obligations

• consumer protection rules

• corporate governance duties

As long as global agreements depend primarily on cooperation rather than punishment, national institutions will remain crucial.

Conclusion

The article argues that global climate governance increasingly depends on whether domestic legal systems can close the credibility gap between promise and performance.

International agreements like the Paris Agreement remain essential for setting shared goals, but they often rely on trust-based accountability. Where that trust weakens, domestic legislatures and courts become the institutions most capable of enforcing climate commitments.

As the world moved toward COP27, Higham concluded that policymakers must ensure national legal systems are equipped to deliver real accountability for both governments and corporations.