The risk society symbolizes the current civilizational moment, in which the unwanted side effects of successful modernization (for those who benefit from it, it should be noted) have become uncontrollable. More than that. We currently live in a world in metamorphosis, in which the certainties of modern society are being undermined in the face of significant global events (Beck, 2017), such as climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic. In this way, it is not possible to predict, even in the face of all the advance of technical-scientific knowledge, what will be the impact of this overwhelming humanitarian crisis that affects everyone and highlights the ephemerality of the human being in the face of the side effects of the modern world. Although climate risks have a globalizing trend and an equalizing effect, the distribution of such risks usually follows the logic of local vulnerability, occurring in a socially unequal and unfair way. The articulation of risk society theory with the environmental and climate justice movement makes it possible to question the inequity in the distribution of environmental risks, especially climatic ones, in addition to introduce important conceptual tools that problematize the privatization of bonds and the socialization of burdens resulting from the exploitation of polluting activities. Institutions, such as the State and the legal system, which should regulate and control the production and the externality of these risks, end up producing a kind of risk normalization, in order to legitimize conflicts resulting from situations of socio-environmental injustice, a phenomenon that Ulrich Beck (1995) calls organized irresponsibility. The insufficiency of domestic responses to the production of global risks and the lack of coerciveness of international law signal the relevant role that Courts around the world - despite the limitations and contradictions inherent to the Judiciary itself as a state institution - are being urged to act in climate governance, deciding actions that discuss legislative and regulatory gaps, non-compliance with reduction targets and climate commitments, under the reinterpretation of fundamental rights in the treatment of climate conflicts, in the light of the so-called climate constitutionalism. The inductive method is used and the research methodology is based, in addition to the analysis of applied legislation, on the national and international bibliographic review and on the study of Brazilian end foreign judicial precedents of greater repercussion involving climate matters. It is expected that the articulated analysis of the risk society theory and the environmental justice movement allied to the climate perspective will provide important theoretical support to confirme the hypothesis raised in this thesis, namely: if (and how) climate litigation can represent a important strategy to promote climate justice to contribute to the reduction of socio-environmental inequalities resulting from the unjust and unequal production and externalization of climate risks, through the application of existing tools in the national legal system aimed at preventing and repairing climate impacts and damages.