In Israel there have been no climate change actions raised against private actors, however the following grounds could be the basis of future actions:

  • Constitutional grounds: under Israeli Basic Laws and the decision in The Israel Union for Environmental Defence v. The Government of Israel HCJ no. 4128/02, there can be action raised if a private actor breaches the minimum environmental standard.
  • National Law: Under the Clean Air Act citizens can bring an action against a private actor if they are found to have committed an act or omission which results in air pollution. Additionally, this can also be of a criminal nature. The definition of air pollution under the Act includes substances like carbon dioxide and methane resulting from combustion so the connection to climate change could be argued. Pensions and Investments: the Commissioner of the Israeli Capital Market, Insurance and Saving Authority issued instructions  for pension institutions, requiring a portion of pension funds to be channelled  to social investments, which will not necessarily yield a return to investors. However, it is not possible under current law to bring a claim against a pension fund that does not support environmental protection, social justice or the protection of human rights.

In relation to remedies, under the Clean Air Act  citizens can be granted damages for the loss sustained due to breach of the Act. Private actors may also have committed an act or omission which could be of a criminal nature and so a remedy could also be punitive.

The Locus Standi is broad. Under the Clean Air Act any citizen can bring an action if they have suffered damage. If a human rights claim is made under the Israeli Basic Law then the individual citizen would also have standing.

Israel has experienced litigation on specific projects on the following grounds:

  • The polluter pays principle has been used as a basis of climate change litigation in Israel, by virtue of the Clean Air Act section 63. It was applied in the Kedoshim v. IDF, Class Action No. 24714-02-16, a class action lawsuit filed against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) for negligence in preventing fire and refraining from proper steps to extinguish it during routine training activities, resulting in emissions of greenhouse gases and damage to the entire population, and contributing to global warming.
  • The precautionary principle can be used as tool for individuals to raise actions against specific projects and could be used in the future in the context of climate change litigation. This principle is also embedded in number of existing environmental legislation (The Clean Air Law, the Non-Ionizing Radiation Law, the Environmental Protection Law (Emissions/Releases and Transfers to the Environment – Reporting and Registering Obligations). This principle was applied in the case of Haifa Chemicals Ltd. V. Municipality of Haifa Criminal Appeal no. 2841/17 where there was a dispute over an ammonia storage facility in an industrial area located close to a populated urban area. It does not deal with climate change specifically but it is illustrative as to how the precautionary principle can be used in litigation, and could form the basis as to how this principle may be used in climate change litigation in the future.
  • Other possible grounds in claims against a government entity are general civil law grounds, for example the civil wrong of negligence, which could theoretically be used to claim future damage from climate change-related harms such as flooding. Given the challenges with proving future causality and in the absence of specific legislation, the chances of such a claim are low.

In terms of remedies, under the polluter pays principle financial remedies are the most likely outcome.

The Locus standi requirements are broad. The Israeli legal system allows for both individual citizens and NGOs to raise actions against the government or government entities in relation to specific projects.

While no climate change litigation has been brought by citizen(s) challenging Israel’s national climate policy or law, the following grounds could be used for a basis:

  • Constitutional grounds: under Israeli Basic Laws which form the constitution of the Country, Citizens have a right to dignity, liberty and property. In 2002 the Supreme Court was called to discuss the right to dignity, liberty and property and the right to a clean environment in the case of The Israel Union for Environmental Defence V. The Government of Israel, HCJ no. 4128/02. The Court was asked whether the text of the Basic Law could be construed to include the right to an adequate environment. The Supreme Court found that the right to a clean environment cannot be derived from the right to human dignity and liberty, but recognized the constitutional right to a “minimal environment”. The term “minimal environment” was not further defined and was left for to broad interpretation.
  • National Legislation: Under the Clean Air Act Citizens can bring an action against the State if the State has been found to have committed an act or omission which results in air pollution.  The definition of air pollution under the Act includes substances like carbon dioxide and methane resulting from combustion so the connection to climate change could be argued. The Protection of the Coastal Environment Law 5764-2004 does not specifically deal with climate change, however it places obligations on The Drainage Authority to prepare plans for each river or any  water source within its territory. These plans must factor in the sustainable use of these resources to address the needs of future generations.
  • International obligations: The Israeli Court in Custodian of Absentee Assets v. Samara et al. Civil Appeal No. 147/55 ruled that international customary law is automatically incorporated into Israeli National Law. However, international treaties which Israel has signed must be incorporated into national legislation.

Under the Clean Air Act a court can award damages to citizens who have suffered loss due to the breach of obligations under the Act. The Clean Air Act also places an obligation on the Israeli Government to create and implement a National Pollution Reduction & Prevention Program. If such a programme is not created, the Government can be ordered to do so, as happened in the case of The Israel Union for Environmental Defense v. The Government of Israel, HCJ No. 1092/12.

The Locus Standi requirement is broad. Under the Clean Air Act any citizen can bring forward an action if they have suffered damage.  Individual citizens can gain standing under the Israeli Basic Law for human rights claims.

Absence of more cases can be attributed to the fact that Climate Change Law is currently in its ‘teething stage’ in Israel.