CLA News / Restorative Justice For Climate Conflicts: Rethinking the Future of Appropriate Dispute Resolution By Anil Changaroth and Lenny Rahman
Climate conflicts, rooted in shared ecological risk and intergenerational responsibility, can be more effectively addressed. While litigation clarifies legal obligations, it is limited in resolving systemic and relational harms. As ESG frameworks shape climate governance and accountability, they also generate new forms of dispute. Drawing on Restorative Justice theory and recent jurisprudence, restorative climate Appropriate Dispute Resolution[1] (ADR) is a principled and practical framework centred on accountability, dialogue, and negotiated repair, that places shared responsibility at the heart of climate conflict resolution.[2]
The Commonwealth Lawyers Association’s Sabah Declaration on Climate Justice [3] frames climate change as a rule-of-law and justice issue, and calls for stronger legal frameworks linking accountability, equitable transition, and protection of climate advocacy. Global leaders [4] and jurists[5] have similarly described climate change as an existential governance challenge. As climate-related litigation grows, courts are increasingly asked to determine responsibility for emissions and unmet sustainability commitments. However, adversarial litigation often struggles with the systemic and relational dimensions of climate disputes.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon of Singapore – in his article A New Perspective on Climate Disputes: Lessons From Therapeutic Justice [6] – considers that climate disputes require a bespoke model of justice, drawing on principles of therapeutic justice that are restorative, holistic, interest-based, and forward-looking. Climate disputes are not simply legal disagreements—they are contests over how societies govern shared survival. Against this backdrop, restorative justice offers a more suitable framework for resolving climate conflicts.
What are Climate Conflicts?
Climate conflicts arise from climate impacts or failures in climate governance. In the Asia Pacific, water stress, biodiversity loss, transboundary haze, and sea-level rise trigger disputes over resource allocation, disaster recovery, cross-border responsibility, and economic transition. While litigation clarifies liability, it faces challenges of causation and limited remedies, restricting a court’s ability to support adaptive governance or long-term compliance. Cases such as Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (2019) [7] and Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell PLC (2021) [8], demonstrate courts’ ability to impose obligations, but not to address the polycentric and intergenerational nature of climate harm.
The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on climate change on 23rd July 2025 [9] affirmed the binding nature of States’ obligations to prevent climate harm, protect human rights, and cooperate to address global warming. Implementing these duties across borders, however, requires mechanisms that enable cooperative compliance and forward-looking governance beyond declaratory judgments alone. These characteristics highlight the limits of adversarial resolution and point toward the need for more relational and forward-looking dispute mechanisms.
Climate Justice and the Role of Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) Frameworks in the Emergence of Climate Conflict
The Sabah Declaration on Climate Justice underscores that climate change is a justice issue requiring accountability, equitable transition, and the protection of affected communities—not merely regulatory compliance. Climate governance is increasingly operationalised through ESG frameworks, which shape how organisations manage emissions, social impacts, and accountability across environmental, social, and governance dimensions. The environmental pillar addresses decarbonisation, biodiversity, and resource use; the social pillar reflects community impacts, labour rights, and equity; and governance focuses on transparency, oversight, and climate-related disclosure.
As ESG standards become embedded in regulation, finance, and contracts, they drive expectations of a just climate transition while also generating new disputes — over unmet emissions targets, inaccurate disclosures, greenwashing, and failed transition commitments. These conflicts often reflect deeper tensions around fairness, burden-sharing, and the social impacts of decarbonisation. They are therefore not merely technical breaches but challenges to legitimacy and trust. ESG thus places climate disputes at the intersection of governance and justice, requiring mechanisms that address shared responsibility, stakeholder participation, and forward-looking compliance. It also reinforces the need for dispute resolution approaches that are both accountable and equitable.
Why Restorative Justice is Suited for Climate Disputes
Restorative justice offers a dispute resolution framework that prioritises the repair of harm over the allocation of blame, making it particularly suited to the systemic and relational nature of climate conflicts, representing a shift from rule-breaking to harm repair.[10] Three fundamental questions may arise – What harm has been caused? Who has been affected? How can it be repaired and prevented?
Restorative justice reframes dispute from adversarial contest to constructive engagement, emphasising accountability, participation and responsibility. It is also noted for its relevance to compliance with regulation such as environmental law.[11] Lisa Singh[12] in Restorative Dialogue For A Just Energy Transition observes – a just energy transition requires inclusive decision-making that centres affected communities. Linking commitments to measurable outcomes, restorative justice embeds accountability within dialogue. While litigation allocates liability, restorative justice within ADR emphasises shared responsibility, facilitating negotiated outcomes, and shifting from damages to adaptive governance. It complements the courts by incorporating dialogue and compliance mechanisms leading to negotiated pathways rather than mere declaratory relief.
The question then becomes how such restorative principles can be operationalised within existing dispute resolution systems.
Implementing Restorative Climate ADR
Operationalising restorative climate ADR requires both institutional mechanisms and facilitative capacity to manage complex, multi-stakeholder disputes.
Available Mechanisms: Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Boards (DAAB)[13]
DAABs, introduced in the 2017 FIDIC[14] rainbow Suite of Contracts,[15] and widely used in international construction projects, provide a preventive dispute resolution model aligned with restorative justice. Established at project outset and engaged throughout the lifecycle, they identify issues early, facilitate dialogue, and prevent escalation. In climate-sensitive and ESG-linked projects, DAABs can function as standing restorative forums by embedding climate obligations. This shifts dispute resolution from reactive litigation to proactive governance through early harm identification, stakeholder engagement, and ongoing compliance monitoring.
Building Regional Capacity: Youth and Mediation Networks
In ASEAN, a significant proportion of the population is under 30. Singapore’s Minister of Home Affairs and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam on 18th April highlighted that young people have a big role to play in climate action. [16] Restorative climate ADR that also depends on skilled facilitators, should move towards institutionalising youth participation enhances both legitimacy and sustainability. The Rotary ASEAN Youth Peacebuilders Programme [17], trained by internationally qualified facilitators from Mediators Beyond Borders International (MBBI) [18] and Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP) (20), builds regional capacity by equipping young leaders with mediation and dialogue skills that can support Restorative Justice processes at community and cross-border levels.
Regional Platforms and Institutional Anchors
Restorative justice aligns with the Asia Pacific’s consultative and consensus-driven traditions and can be embedded within transboundary haze mechanisms, regional water dialogues, and climate-peace platforms. This approach is supported by emerging international and regional bodies/networks including the Commonwealth Lawyers Association’s Climate Justice committee,[19] International Bar Association’s Bar Issues Commission – Climate Change Working Group,[20] Dispute Resolution Board Foundation,[21] MBBI’s Climate Change Project,[22] IEP’s Ecological Threat Report,[23] ESG ADR Forum,[24] ESG Asia Pacific Alliance[25] and the Society of Construction Law (Singapore)’s Environmental Law and Sustainability Focus Group.[26] In Brunei, both the Pertubuhan Ukur, Jurutera dan Arkitek, Negara Brunei Darussalam (PUJA)[27] and Brunei Darussalam Arbitration Centre[28] are suited to lead the way with platforms and networks to support and advance restorative climate ADR.
The Asia Pacific region can incorporate restorative justice mechanisms and training, including through the adoption of the Singapore Convention on Mediation,[29] which can play a pivotal role enforcing climate settlements. Signatory countries may integrate stewardship and dialogue into climate governance frameworks, further strengthening the enforceability of mediated outcomes and reinforcing the practical viability of restorative approaches.
These developments demonstrate that restorative climate ADR is not merely conceptual, but can be embedded within existing institutional and regional frameworks.
Conclusion
Climate disputes are not merely legal controversies but governance conflicts rooted in shared ecological risk and intergenerational responsibility. While litigation clarifies obligations, restorative justice shifts the focus from liability to structured accountability and negotiated repair, evolving dispute resolution from private settlement to governance-based responsibility.
As climate change becomes the central governance challenge of this century, dispute resolution must adapt. Restoration — ecological, social, and institutional — should become the organising principle of climate conflict resolution across the Commonwealth and beyond.
By Anil Changaroth and Lenny Rahman
About the authors:
Anil Changaroth
Anil Changaroth is an internationally accredited Mediator, Arbitrator, Adjudicator, and Restorative Justice practitioner, Advocate and Solicitor of Singapore and Solicitor of England and Wales (called to the Middle Temple, England), MD ChangAroth Chambers LLC and ChangAroth InterNational Consultancy Singapore (https://changarothchambers.com/).
Lenny Rahman is a Digital Dispute Resolution Specialist, Accredited Civil / Commercial Mediator and Advocate & Solicitor, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei-Muara District, Brunei, Head of ChangAroth Chambers Brunei Darussalam.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Anil Changaroth has been using the term ‘Appropriate’ as opposed to ‘Alternate’ since 2013 and well into 2014 when his Chambers and Consultancy were set up.
[2] This paper was initiated by Lenny’s simple thought provoking question about Anil’s background and training in Restorative Justice (mainly in the field of criminal law/practice) and ESG – ‘Can Restorative Justice be applicable to dealing with ESG and Climate Conflicts?’
[3] https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-Sabah-Declaration-on-Climate-Justice
[4] United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned at COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan on 12th November 2024 – the world is in the “final countdown” to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and failure to act will impose profound costs on humanity
[5] The Honourable Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, Judge of the High Court and President of Singapore International Commercial Courts in his speech on the Courts In The Climate Crisis : Accountability and Action on 17th October 2024 described climate change as the most significant and pressing challenge ever faced, one that endangers the very basis of our collective existence (https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/news/news-details/justice-philip-jeyaretnam–keynote-address-delivered-at-the-courts-in-the-climate-crisis–accountability-and-action-conference)
[6] A New Perspective on Climate Disputes: Lessons From Therapeutic Justice, The Honourable the Chief Sundaresh Menon Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Singapore, (2025) 37 SAcLJ 149 (https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal/Current-Issue/ctl/eFirstSALPDFJournalView/mid/494/ArticleId/2052/Citation/JournalsOnlinePDF)
[7] https://www.climatecasechart.com/documents/urgenda-foundation-v-state-of-the-netherlands-judgment_4966
[8] https://www.climatecasechart.com/documents/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc-judgment_4679
[9] https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/icj-advisory-opinion-climate-change
[10] By Howard Zehr in Changing Lenses – A New Focus For Crime and Justice (1990)
[11] John Braithwaite in Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2014), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2514127
[12] https://mediatorsbeyondborders.org/a-starfish-hunter-member-spotlight-lisa-singh/
[13] https://www.drbf.org/dispute-board-concept-0
[14] https://fidic.org/about-fidic
[15] https://fidic.org/sites/default/files/press%20release_rainbow%20suite_2018_03.pdf
[16] Speaking at a Climate Change Conversation 2026 organised by the Rotary Club of Marina City, Singapore – https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/young-people-must-navigate-trade-offs-in-climate-action-shanmugam?utm_campaign=stfb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZnRzaARQYepleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeE7aVLj51k3d7AkL1Cf6-zpyBD9f-XmS-xUwxYNZ7DfVYZi5Cl1nMRSHFvhM_aem_227WecmdVJy4QbhMq4T-lw
[17] Climate Youth Development Programme | National Youth Council
[18] https://events.aseanrotarypeacebuilders.org/index.php/program. The programme led by MBBI (https://mediatorsbeyondborders.org/consulting/consultants/ in which Anil Changaroth is an MBB Consultant and joint facilitator) and IEP (https://www.economicsandpeace.org/ – where Anil Changaroth is a Peace Ambassador, supported by the Rotary Club of Peace Builders Singapore (where Anil Changaroth is the charter president https://www.facebook.com/RCPeaceBuilderSG/, District 3310 https://www.rotarydistrict3310.org.my/), supporting, facilitating and further developing the programme.
[19] https://www.commonwealthlawyers.com/climate-justice-committee/
[20] The International Bar Association BIC Climate Change Working Group (https://www.ibanet.org/BIC-climate-change-working-group) currently has 3 sub groups, including Activity 2 (model curriculum on continuing legal education on climate change law) that Anil Chanagroth is a part of.
[21] Anil Chanagroth is currently the Country Representative – Singapore for The Dispute Resolution Board Foundation (https://www.drbf.org/) and is working on a proposal to developing a ESG centric ADR training for the DRBF’s Project Team Training (https://www.drbf.org/project-team-training)
[22] https://mediatorsbeyondborders.org/what-we-do/projects/climate-change/
[23] https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ETR-2022-web.pdf
[24] https://www.linkedin.com/company/esg-adr-forum/
[25] Currently an informal alliance of law practices with interest and/or focus in ESG related disputes and practice – made up of ChangAroth Chambers. LLC Singapore, ChangAroth Chambers Brunei Darussalam, Panchtattva Advocates India (https://panchtattva.org/about-us.html), AFHS Law Firm Indonesia (https://afhs.co.id/dummy/) and EPLegal Vietnam (https://eplegal.com/).
[26] https://scl.org.sg/public-resources/chairman-s-messages/859-chair-s-message-february-2022#:~:text=Our%20%22SCL(S)%20Environmental,allowed)%20at%20our%20next%20event! –
[27] https://pujabrunei.com/puja-b-organisational-structure/ – the objectives include the promotion, fostering and advancement of the science and art of professions of surveyors, engineers and architects in line with the aims and objectives of His Majesty The Sultan And Yang Di-Pertuan of Negara Brunei Darussalam
[28] https://www.bdac.com.bn/ – where the co authors are on its panel of Arbitrators and Mediators
[29] https://www.singaporeconvention.org/
