This paper focuses on challenges posed by the separation of powers in democratic societies for climate change litigation, focusing on mainstreaming adaptation. Economic development and climate change adaptation are closely interlinked, leading to an integration of the two as one solution. The main aim of a mainstreaming strategy is to capture the potential of other developmental policies for implementing climate-friendly pathways. It has been argued that mainstreaming is a more sustainable and effective use of government resources than designing climate adaptation policies separate from whatever developmental policies the government is putting in place. The lack of political will and failure to implement many a policy linked to international environmental obligations such as the Paris Agreement, has led to citizens who are no longer content with government inertia to hold them accountable. This has been done through various strategic climate litigations around the globe with varying levels of success. However, in democratic societies where checks and balances exist between the three arms of government, separation of powers has been a major issue in climate change litigation. It is also clear that challenging mainstreaming strategies through litigation comes with its challenges. This article will highlight the contentious relationship between the progressive judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. This article aims to contribute to the collaborative knowledge in environmental jurisprudence, focusing on the challenges the separation of powers poses in climate change litigation, focusing on mainstreaming adaptation.

Authors: A. Oyelusi, T.K. Olaniyi

Published in: World Congress on Sustainable Technologies (WCST-2024)

• Date of Conference: 4-6 November 2024
• DOI: 10.20533/WCST.2024.0006
• ISBN: 978-1-913572-77-8
• Conference Location: St Anne’s College, Oxford University, UK