<![CDATA[Climate-related environmental harm poses a particular challenge in Indonesia, where climate obligations remain dispersed across environmental and sectoral legal regimes because Indonesia lacks a comprehensive Climate Law. This study examines how such regulatory fragmentation affects legal accountability for climate-related environmental harm and how existing environmental litigation can be reconstructed as a judicial pathway toward climate accountability. It employs qualitative doctrinal legal research incorporating statutory, conceptual, case-law, and limited comparative analysis. The study analyses Indonesian constitutional and environmental legal norms, relevant sectoral regulations, selected judicial decisions concerning environmentally harmful activities with climate implications, and comparative climate-litigation scholarship. The findings show that Indonesia does not face a legal vacuum but a fragmented climate legal architecture that creates a climate accountability gap, particularly on causation, attribution, standing, scientific evidence, responsibility, and remedies. The study further identifies substantive climate relevance as the threshold for determining when environmental harm warrants climate-responsive adjudication. Once this threshold is established, existing legal foundations can be reconstructed through integrated judicial reasoning on causation, evidence, standing, and responsibility, with remedies extending beyond compensation to ecological restoration, prevention, and prospective protection. The study contributes a transitional judicial pathway that enables environmental litigation to address climate-related harm while preserving legality, scientific reliability, procedural fairness, proportionality, and institutional restraint.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
