Abstract
As an increasing number of climate change cases reach international and regional (quasi-)judicial bodies, they present novel legal issues that these bodies have to grapple with. One of these issues is the determination of the scope of extraterritorial obligations of States for transboundary climate harm, which has led to divergent reasoning and outcomes in recent cases. This article traces how this issue has been assessed in recent climate litigation and other interpretative documents. By contrasting the approach of the European Court of Human Rights with that of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, it examines the unique issues climate change raises in determining (extra)territorial jurisdiction and how these bodies have navigated these issues. In doing so, the article seeks to elucidate the challenges and unanswered questions in international human rights law concerning States’ extraterritorial obligations for transboundary climate harm.