Petitioners and / or the court argues that countries / corporations are responsible for a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are consistent with a given metric of fairness, regardless of what other countries or corporations do.

The petitioners and / or the court takes a long-developed body of law - like, for example, tort law - and applies it to the issues raised by climate change.

The petition and / or the court decision provides that countries have a duty to cooperate with each other on climate change at the international level.

The petitioners bring the case to a court or reviewing body that is more likely to be receptive to their claims.

Constitutional, statutory, and / or human rights are important features of the case.

The case targets a fossil fuel project like a coal mine or an oil pipeline.

The petitioners and / or the court emphasize the fact that the window of time left to prevent the catastrophic effects of too much warming is closing, especially since carbon dioxide - once emitted - remains in the atmosphere for centuries. In other words, CO2 emissions are permanent over human timescales, which underscores how climate action is urgently needed to avoid locking in dangerous levels of global warming.

Younger and future generations play an essential role in the case, including as petitioners and by making youth-oriented claims and arguments.

Providing a wide definition of the greenhouse gas emissions that can be attributed to a country / corporation in order to prevent that country or corporation from avoiding responsibility for emissions.

Petitioners and / or the court argue that the country / corporation should be responsible for justifying its climate actions in the first instance - the petitioners shouldn't, in the first instance, be required to prove why the country's / corporation's actions on climate change are inadequate.

Countries / corporations obligations on climate change and human rights are informed by international environmental and climate law, particularly the Paris Agreement.

The case uses a carbon budget in its reasoning.

Petitioners and / or the court argue that human rights can guide interpretations of requirements with which corporations must comply, even when corporations don't have direct positive human rights obligations.

The petition includes a variety of claims from different bodies of law - ranging, for example, from administrative law to environmental law to tort law to human rights law - in order to increase the chance that the reviewing court will react positively to at least one of the arguments.