A Climate of Uncertainty: Diverging Interpretations of Freedom of Expression and Necessity in Comparative Climate Protest Criminal Jurisprudence

As the climate crisis intensifies, global climate protests have surged, met by a corresponding rise in criminal prosecutions of activists. This paper explores the shifting judicial landscape where courts struggle to reconcile traditional criminal law with the unprecedented nature of environmental emergency and the protected right to freedom of expression. Despite growing recognition of these rights by international bodies—including the UN and regional human rights courts—national jurisdictions exhibit significant inconsistencies in their legal reasoning. To address the scarcity of comparative literature on this phenomenon, this study conducts a multi-jurisdictional analysis of recent criminal jurisprudence (2018–2024) across France, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The research specifically examines how courts in these five states balance the limitations of freedom of expression and assembly against the application of the necessity defense. By analyzing cases ranging from infrastructure blockades to symbolic property damage, the study identifies how statutory provisions, judicial perceptions of climate urgency, and the "efficacy" of protest actions shape the boundaries of legality. The findings reveal a fragmented global picture where the degree of disruption and the public/private nature of the target remain decisive, yet inconsistent, factors in determining the criminal liability of climate activists.