<b>The Role of Courts in Interpreting and Enforcing Environmental Laws Related to Climate Change: A Catalyst for Progress or a Barrier?</b>

The increasing urgency of climate change has placed courts across the globe at the forefront of interpreting, enforcing, and shaping environmental law. Rising global temperatures, frequent natural disasters, biodiversity loss, and widespread environmental degradation demand urgent responses from states and corporations. However, political inertia, weak enforcement mechanisms, and economic interests often hinder effective climate governance. In this context, judicial institutions have emerged as critical actors in bridging the gap between international commitments and domestic implementation. This paper examines the dual role of courts as both catalysts for progress and barriers in addressing climate change. On the one hand, courts have acted as agents of judicial activism, setting important legal precedents, holding governments accountable to emission targets, and compelling corporations to reduce their carbon footprint. Landmark cases such as Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands (2019), and Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021) illustrate how judicial intervention can significantly influence climate policy and governance. On the other hand, courts are often constrained by rigid legal frameworks, jurisdictional limits, political backlash, and difficulties in enforcing compliance. The reliance on complex scientific evidence further complicates judicial reasoning, leading to fragmented or inconsistent rulings across jurisdictions. The study employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, analyzing landmark national and international cases alongside scholarly literature. It argues that while courts are not a panacea for the climate crisis, they remain indispensable actors in climate governance. Ultimately, the paper concludes that enhancing judicial capacity, strengthening legal frameworks, and promoting international cooperation can empower courts to serve as effective catalysts rather than barriers to global climate action.