Standing as Barrier or Gateway: Contrasting U.S. Doctrine with Global Climate Jurisprudence

This article offers a comparative case law analysis of how courts address standing in climate litigation. Taking U.S. federal Article III standing as a reference point, it examines how courts in various jurisdictions confront analogous threshold questions through different doctrinal forms, including admissibility, legal interest, victim status, and constitutional review. Three questions recur across jurisdictions: whether organizations may sue in a representative capacity, whether climate harm remains legally cognizable when widely shared, and whether threshold review is conducted through a distinct procedural test or through a broader rights-based framework. The article argues that attention to these differences in judicial reasoning helps explain why similar climate claims proceed in some courts but not in others. In doing so, it shows that the procedural gateway to climate adjudication is shaped not only by formal doctrine but also by how courts characterize climate harm, the claimant, and the judicial role.