Net-zero pledges have become the most important part of modern climate policy. This is because countries and businesses have agreed to cut or balance their greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century to meet the Paris Agreement’s temperature objectives. But the lack of instruments that can be used to enforce the rules has created a big gap in accountability between goals and actions. In response, climate litigation has developed worldwide as an effective means of transforming political climate promises into binding legal obligations. This report examines the evolution of climate litigation in enforcing net-zero commitments via local courts, regional tribunals, and international human rights institutions. It looks at important cases like “Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands,” “Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell,” “Juliana v. United States,” and “Neubauer v. Germany” to show how ideas like human rights, fairness between generations, and tort-based responsibility are now the basis for judicial efforts to force stronger action on climate change. The research further examines the matters of standing, causation, scientific ambiguity, and compliance, alongside emerging trends such as corporate fiduciary lawsuits, global enforcement, and the increasing importance of climate attribution science. In the end, it says that climate lawsuits are both a way to fix problems and a way to get things done in global climate governance. They move net-zero promises from wishful thinking into legal, scientific, and moral obligations.