‘Foot in the Door’ or ‘Door in the Face’? The development of legal strategies in European climate litigation between structure and agency

Following the landmark Urgenda case, European social movements and legal networks have increasingly turned to courts to compel governments to more ambitious mitigation policies. The rapid proliferation of Urgenda-like cases in the most diverse European jurisdictions, makes a compelling case to investigate the motivations and goals animating European climate litigators, especially when facing high legal barriers. While timely legal analyses of high-profile climate litigation abound in the literature, an emerging body of research has focused on the genesis of climate cases , their strategies, and societal impacts. To contribute to this latter thread, the article investigates how legal barriers and considerations, and social movements' motivations and goals, have shaped a diverse range of legal strategies in high-profile climate lawsuits inspired by Urgenda in Europe. The article shows that courts might turn into very different arenas to pursue social change, in which actors elect cautious or daring strategies, depending on the legal system and tradition they refer to, but also their vision and objectives.