Spain and Global Climate Leadership: Capacities, Contradictions, and Domestic Challenges
By Pablo Morente Acale*
Introduction: International Climate progressivism
When considering leading states in global and European climate action Spain may not immediately come to mind. However, in recent years, Spain has quietly consolidated its position as a "green state" within the European Union, whose climate priorities have shifted of late. In particular, the European Commission’s agenda, influenced by the prevailing political context, has undergone a dramatic pivot, significantly scaling back its climate ambitions; with security, defense, and migration issues policy taking precedence over the climate emergency.
In response to the Commission's decision to simplify rules on sustainability and EU investments, Spain was the only member state to explicitly denounce this environmental rollback through a formal letter addressed to the Commission: positioning the Iberian country as an important dissenter in the EU’s green regression. Moreover, Spain urged the European Commission to reform the common electricity market rules to decouple electricity prices from the wholesale market and gas prices, aiming to protect consumers and allow them to benefit from the expansion of renewable energy. Spain also opposed the inclusion of nuclear and gas energy in the EU’s new green taxonomy.
Additionally, in February 2025, Spain became the first European state to ratify the Treaty on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). The treaty aims to designate 30% of the high seas as protected areas by 2030, compared to the current figure of just 1%. With this step, Spain once again positions itself as a European leader in marine biodiversity conservation.
Finally We should mention that Spain played a significant role in leading the European Union during its rotating presidency of the Council of the EU (July - December 2023). Teresa Ribera, a veteran climate negotiator, was responsible for leading the EU delegation during COP28 (Conference of the Parties) in 2023. In this regard, its relevant to note that COP28 in Dubai was one of the most contentious to date, requiring the EU to maintain a firm stance to prevent backsliding in the ongoing debate between the need to "phase out" fossil fuels and the softer notion of "transitioning" to clean energy; with the latter being the language ultimately adopted.
In keeping with the Country’s progressive stance Spain presented its written statement before the International Court of Justice, positioning itself as a staunch supporter of international law, multilateralism, and international judicial bodies: an increasingly rare stance in today’s geopolitical climate. According to the Daily Debriefs Compendium (December 2024), Spain's oral submission was the most useful and progressive presented by a European state. Spain adopted a human rights-based approach grounded in the dignity and prosperity of present and future generations, highlighting UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300, which recognized the right to a healthy environment. This said, despite its robust defense of human rights in the context of climate change, Spain simultaneously sought to minimize the legal obligations of states to protect this right, contradicting its own claim that environmental protection transcends individual State interests and the protection of this right at the domestic constitutional level (art. 45 Spanish Constitution). This was a missed opportunity to go further.
In light of Spain’s acts on the international stage, one could argue that the country has the potential to assume a position of global climate leadership as an EU member. Domestically, however, significant issues must first be addressed.
Domestic Challenges and Contradictions
One of the most pressing domestic concerns involves the increasingly hostile treatment of civil society and social rights advocacy within the country: a hostility which has even led to criminal procedures being activated.
As a prior point, it is important to understand the strength of green social movements in Spain. A prominent example is the case of the Mar Menor (a coastal lagoon in the Murcia region of southeastern Spain): an ecosystem that collapsed due to agricultural chemical runoff, and sparked a nationwide mobilization. Indeed, various civil society groups collected half a million signatures to introduce a popular legislative initiative which ultimately resulted in the enactment of Law 3/2020 on July 27, 2020, and made the Mar Menor the first natural area in Europe to be granted legal personality and environmental rights. As can be seen Spain had already been experiencing heightened climate activism, especially around the COP25 held in Madrid in 2019, which significantly boosted the visibility of youth-led movements such as Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion. These groups organized large-scale demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience, with the striking detail that the average age of participants was just 19 years old. After the massive climate demonstrations in Spain in 2019 and the subsequent Covid-19 pandemic, climate organizations began to consider strategic litigation as another tool in the fight against climate change.
Finally, the judicial sphere must also be considered. Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace Spain, Ecologistas en Acción, and Oxfam Intermón filed an administrative lawsuit before the Spanish Supreme Court against the Government of Spain for failing to meet international climate commitments. On October 1, 2020, the Court admitted the case, marking Spain’s first climate litigation for governmental inaction. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s emissions reduction targets were inconsistent with its obligations under the Paris Agreement and the IPCC’s scientific recommendations to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
The Legal Battle: Main Arguments of the Parties
For the claimants, the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set by the Spanish Government fall short of the commitments undertaken with the ratification of the Paris Agreement and fail to reflect the scientific recommendations of the IPCC to limit global warming to 1.5ºC. Spain represents a paradigmatic case. The country has systematically breached Decision 2002/358/EC concerning the EU’s burden-sharing of the Kyoto Protocol obligations. Rather than reducing emissions in line with the European average, Spain increased its emissions by 15% compared to 1990 levels, reaching a peak of 42% above 1990 emissions in 2006.
The legal arguments presented by the claimants link the Spanish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with the Spanish Government’s failure to meet its international climate commitments. According to the claimants, "the Government violates the rights to private and family life, home, and life itself-both for current and future generations living in our territory—as recognized in Articles 10, 18, and 15 of the Spanish Constitution, as well as in Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. These generations will not have access to a healthy environment in which to live a dignified life, given the impacts of climate change in Spain" (Case No. 2/265/2020, p. 155).
In court, the Spanish State disregarded the UNEP Emissions Gap Report, the IPCC’s scientific recommendations, and an expert report submitted by the claimants. It argued that “none of these documents establish a binding obligation to adopt specific GHG reduction targets of no less than 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.” Regarding human rights violations, the Government claimed that the claimants lack standing to defend the fundamental rights of third parties. Furthermore, it argued that the ECtHR jurisprudence cited in the lawsuit does not support the alleged violations of Articles 15 and 18 of the Spanish Constitution, nor is it relevant to the matter at hand. The Spanish Government also maintained that the right to a healthy environment is not enshrined as a fundamental right in the Spanish Constitution.
This position reveals a paradox. While the Spanish Government has acknowledged before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that States bear positive obligations to protect human rights, it has evaded such responsibility in its domestic legal arguments before national courts.
Initially, the claimants sued the State for failing to adopt a mitigation plan, as required by the Paris Agreement through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, during the course of the proceedings, the Government approved the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP). In response, the claimants amended their claim to argue that the lack of ambition in the NECP jeopardizes Spain’s international commitment to limit global warming to 1.5ºC. Currently, Spain’s NECP aims to reduce GHG emissions by 23% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. However, the claimant organizations demand a 55% reduction aligned with the EU-wide average target.
As a result of the two lawsuits, the Spanish Supreme Court issued two rulings: Judgment No. 1038/2023, of 18 July, addressing the Government’s climate inaction, and Judgment No. 1079/2023, of 24 July, concerning the 2021–2030 Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling (Judgment No. 1079/2023 of July 24) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court acknowledged that “both the Paris Agreement and EU law establish minimum standards,” but added that “these minimums involve meeting commitments that are general and non-specific,” and that “Spain’s policy aligns with the commitments made as an EU member, subject to the EU’s criteria.” Consequently, the Court concluded: “The decision to adopt EU standards cannot be deemed arbitrary in a manner that would justify this Court overturning it” (Legal Ground 8). Unlike the German Federal Constitutional Court (Urgenda case), the Spanish Supreme Court based its ruling on the principle that the judiciary should not interfere in executive policymaking.
According with Professor Álex Peñalver; The Spanish judiciary missed a valuable opportunity to align its doctrine with a growing body of climate litigation across Europe and the world that recognizes the relevance of human rights in environmental cases.
Nevertheless, this legal battle is ongoing. The Spanish Constitutional Court has admitted the climate organizations’ claim. The upcoming advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice could influence the Constitutional Court’s decision since it may offer a renewed impetus to support the claims of climate organizations. In all, it is evident that Spain must reconsider its stance: both domestically and internationally. It cannot credibly advocate for States’ responsibility in protecting human rights while denying such obligations in its domestic courts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Spain has the capacity to become a key European and global actor in the fight against climate change. Although it may often be overlooked, Spain has demonstrated international legal leadership, particularly in climate negotiations at the United Nations. It was the European country that most forcefully defended the rights of future generations and human dignity before the International Court of Justice. Spanish society is highly mobilized and deeply committed to the climate cause. Domestically, however, the Spanish state must undertake profound reforms.
Spain is currently engaged in its most significant climate litigation to date. The forthcoming decision by the International Court of Justice will be decisive for the ruling of the Spanish Constitutional Court and may pave the way for the claimant organizations to bring their case before the European Court of Human Rights.
*Pablo Morente is a Spanish national, has completed his Master’s degree in Fundamental Rights at the University of Granada, and he has recently started his PhD at the University of Valladolid, Spain. His research focuses specifically on youth climate litigation, conducting research on this topic for the Council of Europe. Pablo has collaborated with WYCJ as a campaigner for the European Front.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the symposium’s blog posts are those of the author and do not represent the views of WYCJ. Furthermore, university chapters were prepared, edited, and approved by the respective universities; WYCJ cannot guarantee the level of scientific and legal inquiry, nor the content of blog posts.