The Centre for Climate Engagement’s spotlight interview series explores law for climate action through the lens of a range of experts. Jessica is the Cambridge Hoffmann Fellow in Global Climate Governance with the World Economic Forum and Hughes Hall. She is a doctoral candidate and an affiliated Lecturer in climate law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge, as well as a Researcher at C-EENRG.
1. What brought you to Hughes Hall, and how have you found Cambridge so far?
I came to Hughes Hall through a fellowship opportunity that emerged during the second year of my PhD. The Centre for Climate Engagement and the World Economic Forum were seeking someone working on climate-related liability and corporate risk, which aligned well with my research.
Hughes Hall offered a different and very welcome dynamic. I’d attended climate-related seminars and events hosted at Hughes, so I knew about the Centre’s work, but being able to engage more deeply was a welcome opportunity. What I’ve appreciated is the way Hughes Hall bridges academia and business in the climate space – creating opportunities to translate research into tools of practical application in the boardroom.
The CCE community is collaborative, ambitious, and outward-facing – all of which have made my time here especially meaningful.
2. When and why did you become interested in climate change, and how do you use your career to help tackle it?
My journey into climate change began while working in private practice, in international arbitration with a focus on disputes in the energy sector. At the time, climate change was not a mainstream concern in legal practice, particularly in commercial and investment arbitration. But I realised this was a moment of major change and wanted to understand it more deeply, not just through the prism of the law, but through policy, economics, and science. That’s what brought me to Cambridge and led me to pursue a PhD focused on climate and energy law within a multidisciplinary framework.
3. What is the specific focus of your current work in relation to climate change?
My current work looks at how traditional legal systems are evolving in response to the climate change, and how that evolution is reshaping the risks faced by corporations and governments.
I study climate litigation at multiple levels: domestic courts, regional human rights bodies like the European Court of Human Rights, and international courts and tribunals. I’m interested in how open-textured legal mechanisms — such as the duty of care and due diligence obligations— are being adapted to address climate-related impacts. Many of these tools weren’t designed with climate in mind, yet they’re being repurposed in creative and often effective ways.
One of my key areas of focus is the emergence of “legal system risk”, a concept introduced by Mark Carney in his 2015 speech ‘Tragedy on the Horizon’. He anticipated that legal risk would become increasingly salient as climate impacts gave rise to litigation. That shift is now underway: courts are being used to reassign responsibility for climate harms and to seek redress, often in novel and complex ways.
I’m trying to understand how this growing body of legal action is influencing executive decision-making, particularly at board level. By identifying litigation trends and clarifying legal duties, I hope my research will help organisations navigate climate risk more thoughtfully and proactively.
4. What makes law for climate action so timely and important?
We’re now about ten years on from two of the earliest landmark climate cases — Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (2015) and Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015) — which fundamentally shifted how courts approach climate responsibility. At the same time, we’re also a decade into the Paris Agreement, with its promises and limitations becoming increasingly apparent.
This moment feels pivotal. Climate litigation has evolved into a global movement, with cases now reaching apex courts and international tribunals. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The Court clarified that states have binding legal duties under international law to protect the climate system and that failure to meet those duties may constitute an internationally wrongful act. Crucially, the opinion emphasised that these duties extend to regulating private sector activity — meaning states must ensure that business conduct aligns with their international climate responsibilities. This development is expected to shape future litigation, policy, and corporate governance.
The legal landscape is also maturing. We’re moving from novel, experimental claims to more structured jurisprudence. At the same time, we’re learning from failures. Early cases that didn’t succeed have sparked new arguments, grounded in stronger science and more nuanced legal thinking.
The science, too, is catching up. Attribution science — which links specific climate impacts to human-caused emissions — has advanced significantly. This is critical for proving harm in court. So now, law and science are starting to meet in ways that make climate litigation more viable and potentially transformative.
In short, climate law is no longer niche or emerging; it’s becoming essential. It fills the accountability gaps where political will is lacking, and it’s helping reshape norms, responsibilities, and expectations in real time.
5. What are the climate issues that keep you awake at night?
What troubles me most is the human tendency toward denial or delay in the face of slow-building threats. We’re incredibly reactive — often unable to imagine the full scale of a problem until it’s right in front of us.
Climate change is particularly difficult in that regard. It’s visible, yes, but often feels just distant enough for many to ignore. We know tipping points are coming — points beyond which the damage becomes irreversible — and yet collective urgency is still missing. The systems we live in are so interdependent and fragile that once those thresholds are crossed, the consequences will cascade rapidly.
6. What positive climate-related stories or developments have you seen in your career?
One of the most hopeful stories I’ve seen is the evolution of climate litigation itself. Over the last decade, it’s become an iterative and dynamic process – one that demonstrates human creativity and persistence.
For example, when a legal claim doesn’t succeed, plaintiffs and their legal teams often don’t stop. Instead, they adapt by refining their arguments, deepening collaboration with scientists, and identifying new pathways to accountability. This continuous feedback loop between litigants and courts is strengthening the overall body of climate law.
We’ve also seen shifts in legal strategy from focusing solely on emissions reductions to broader approaches like fossil fuel non-proliferation or supply-side regulation. That kind of flexibility shows that climate law is maturing in response to the real-world complexity of the crisis.
Another positive trend is the increasing alignment between science and law. As attribution science improves, the evidence base for legal claims grows stronger and more compelling in court.
All of this gives me hope. The fact that legal communities, traditionally seen as conservative and slow to change, are becoming active players in climate response is encouraging. It suggests that progress is possible, even within traditional systems.
Slingshot