Publications about practitioner inquiry in professional development schools (PDSs) tend to emphasize localized descriptions. This has led to a tension in the scholarship between valuing knowledge generated through reports of practitioner inquiry and valuing the generation of methodologically rigorous, potentially transferable knowledge about practitioner inquiry. This chapter addresses that tension by highlighting localized descriptions while aiming to produce new knowledge about practitioner inquiry within the PDS movement. The chapter’s purpose is to construct an up-to-date perspective on practitioner inquiry as a distinctive PDS practice. The authors conducted a systematic review of descriptions of practitioner inquiry in PDS literature published between 2008–2022. The chapter begins with an overview of the foundations of practitioner inquiry in PDSs. The review’s method is described, then its findings are presented through a five-part typology of ways practitioner inquiry was commonly positioned. The chapter concludes by discussing future directions for research about inquiry in PDSs.

An introduction to the Handbook, with summary of the chapters

This chapter points out the significant challenges in holding foundation model developers and deployers clearly responsible for the uses and outputs of their creations under US law. Scienter requirements, and difficulties in creating proof, make it challenging to establish liability under many statutes with civil penalties and torts. Constitutional protections for speech may shield model-generated outputs, or the models themselves, from some forms of regulation—though legal scholars are divided over the extent of these protections. And legal challenges to agencies’ authority over AI systems could hamstring regulators’ ability to proactively address foundation models’ risks. All is not lost, though. Each of these doctrines do have potential pathways to liability and recourse. However, in all cases there will likely be protracted battles over liability involving the issues described in this chapter.

This chapter constructs five ideal types of participants who undergo quite diverse processes of joining and leaving violent extremist groups: “ideologists,” “followers,” “adventurers,” “misfits,” and “traditionalists”. These five types tend to be influenced by relatively distinct combinations of push, pull, and barrier factors. The implications of this analysis are that to prevent recruitment into and engagement in violent extremism, push and pull factors should be reduced, and barriers to participation should be reinforced. Likewise, to facilitate disengagement from violent extremism, push and pull factors should be reinforced, and barriers to disengagement and reintegration should be reduced. Importantly, to be relevant and effective, preventive interventions should be targeted to the specific type of person in question, addressing their specific drivers or needs.

Chapter 19 looks at two landmark decisions that were issued after the submission of the full manuscript of this book for publication: the Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on climate change and marine protection, and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland. The authors situate these decisions within the broader context of climate litigation, examining their implications for future cases and drawing connections to the themes explored in other chapters. They demonstrate how these decisions both reflect and advance emerging best practice in climate jurisprudence, potentially inspiring further innovation based on science and rigorous legal reasoning.

Chapter 3 on Attribution Science delves deeper into the science that establishes causal links between climate change, specific sources of emissions, and its impacts. The authors illustrate how these scientific developments are enhancing our ability to pinpoint the causes of climate impacts, an evolution crucial to a range of procedural and substantive issues that may arise in climate litigation. The authors also delve into specific regional impacts and showcase how attribution science has illuminated the ways in which different parts of the world are experiencing and responding to the unique challenges posed by a changing climate. This includes case studies in Africa, the Americas, Europe, the South Pacific, and Asia. The authors conclude by addressing the limitations and challenges in the field of attribution science before explaining how it is nevertheless poised to play an ever-more critical role in our collective response to climate change.

Chapter 6 on Separation of Powers offers a comprehensive exploration of how the balance of power between the judiciary and other branches of government plays out in climate litigation. The authors critically analyse key cases where these doctrines have been invoked, shedding light on how these doctrines shape the courts’ approach to climate cases. They underscore the significant variation in how this issue is dealt with across jurisdictions, acknowledging the diversity of constitutional and legal frameworks globally. Despite this diversity, the authors distil an emerging best practice where courts are increasingly recognising their crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights and constitutional values in the context of climate change. This recognition is not a one-directional or universal trend but a nuanced evolution detectable across various jurisdictions and legal systems.

Chapter 9 examines the principle of the duty of care in the context of climate litigation. The authors explore how this principle has been invoked in a growing range of jurisdictions, in different ways, to hold governments and corporations accountable for their respective contributions to climate change. By analysing judicial decisions in prominent cases such as Urgenda and Milieudefensie in the Netherlands, Neubauer in Germany, and Notre Affaire à Tous in France, the authors explore the potential of the duty of care principle to compel more ambitious climate action in pending and future cases. The emerging best practice they identify suggests a growing willingness of courts to recognise a duty of care for governments and corporations towards citizens in relation to climate change.

Chapter 5 on Admissibility delves into the factors determining whether a climate case can be heard in court. It presents a clear understanding of the criteria for admissibility and their potential implications on the trajectory of climate litigation. The chapter also delves into the interplay between domestic and international legal rules and norms and their influence on the criteria for admissibility. The author’s analysis reveals that a restrictive interpretation of admissibility criteria can present formidable access to justice barriers, particularly for those most impacted by climate change. In light of these challenges, the author’s distillation of emerging best practice highlights instances where courts and quasi-judicial bodies have interpreted admissibility criteria to ensure access to justice. Specifically, the chapter highlights cases where these bodies have considered human rights and justice imperatives in their admissibility decisions. These decisions highlight the potential for an inclusive and equitable approach to climate litigation, one that aligns with the global nature of the climate crisis and the urgent need for climate justice.

Chapter 16 on Causation explores the challenges of proving causation in an interconnected system like the climate, where multiple actors contribute to the overall impacts. The authors highlight the significance of probabilistic approaches, recognising that establishing direct causation can be challenging due to the nature of climate change and the cumulative nature of greenhouse gas emissions. In their exploration of emerging best practices, the authors underscore the growing recognition among courts of the need for nuanced interpretations of causation requirements in climate litigation. They highlight innovative judicial strategies that utilise scientific evidence and expert testimony to assess the contribution of specific actors to climate impacts, even in the absence of direct causation. They emphasise the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between legal and scientific experts to navigate the complexities of causation in climate cases. By incorporating and further developing these emerging best practices, courts can facilitate an accurate and fair distribution of responsibilities through the cases they adjudicate.

Chapter 13 on Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities provides a critical analysis of this cornerstone principle of international climate law and its implications for climate litigation. The principle recognises the differentiated responsibilities and capabilities of countries in addressing climate change, acknowledging the historical contribution of developed nations to global greenhouse gas emissions and the greater capacity these nations possess to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts. The author critically analyses key cases where the principle has been raised, and assesses the legal reasoning employed by courts and tribunals that have given it a specific meaning. The author then identifies instances of emerging best practice where the principle has been interpreted and applied in ways that enhance climate justice outcomes. She notes that such instances do not yet constitute a uniform trend but they nonetheless illustrate the potential of this principle in shaping the delineation of responsibilities in climate lawsuits, considering fairness, equity, and historical responsibility.

Chapter 12 examines how international law is interpreted and applied in climate litigation. The authors explore the interplay between international and domestic law, and how it can shape the outcomes of climate litigation. Their exploration of emerging best practice reveals a progressive trend: domestic courts are increasingly incorporating international climate obligations into their rulings. This trend not only underscores the significance of international law in shaping domestic legal responses to climate change but also amplifies the capacity of domestic legal systems to address the impacts of climate change more effectively. Moreover, the authors spotlight emerging best practices from regional and international bodies. They argue that these practices demonstrate the potency of international legal norms in influencing the trajectory of climate litigation, fostering a global legal landscape that is increasingly responsive to the climate crisis.

Chapter 20 reflects on the evolving landscape of climate litigation, circling back to some of the insights emerging from the Handbook’s various chapters, and speculates on its future trajectory. The editors begin by underscoring the remarkable progress that has been made in climate litigation, highlighting the significant role it has played in shaping legal responses to the climate crisis. They emphasise that the journey of climate litigation is far from over and that the field is poised for continued advancements and innovations. In particular, the editors shine a light on new frontiers for strategic litigation, including loss and damage cases that promote climate justice and considerations of ethics, fairness, and equity; claims against private polluters, particularly major corporate greenhouse gas emitters; more diverse litigation against governments that target the insufficient ambition, inadequate implementation, and lack of transparency in climate policies; litigation defending biodiversity through a climate lens; and inter-State climate lawsuits.

Chapter 14 on Intergenerational Equity sheds light on how this principle, which posits a responsibility to ensure that future generations inherit a habitable planet, has been invoked in climate cases to date. The authors examine how this principle has been interpreted and applied across different jurisdictions, highlighting the notable contributions of jurisprudence from the Global South in shaping the development and understanding of the principle. Through an examination of leading cases from around the world, they illuminate how courts in these jurisdictions have infused their decisions with a consideration for future generations, thereby advancing a more inclusive and long-term perspective on climate justice. The authors distil instances of emerging best practice where the principle of intergenerational equity has been invoked to guide legal reasoning and judicial decisions in climate cases. They underscore the potential of this principle to shape future climate litigation, particularly as the impacts of climate change increasingly span across generations.