04 August 2025
Sea-Level Rise Reaches The Hague
The advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 23 July 2025 marks a pivotal moment in the articulation of States’ obligations concerning climate change. While based on broader rules and principles of international law, the opinion foregrounded the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a key legal framework relevant to defining States’ climate obligations. As the ICJ itself stated, UNCLOS ‘forms part of the most directly relevant applicable law’ (para. 124). Thus, far from peripheral, the law of the sea emerged as a primary site for interpreting and enforcing States’ climate obligations under international law. Continue reading >>
0 
01 August 2025
The Ruling and the Mirror
Much of the commentary that has emerged so far, in this symposium and in seemingly every other corner of the internet, focuses on the legal content of the opinion: the articulation of States’ obligations under international law, the rejection of the lex specialis argument, and the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, inter many alia. Yet beyond the legal reasoning and doctrinal outcomes lies something else. The opinion is also an act of identity performance: a way for the ICJ to speak about itself. Continue reading >>
0
24 July 2025
The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change
“An existential threat” – this is how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) characterized climate change in its long-awaited advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change. In the most significant development in international climate law since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the ICJ outlined numerous obligations that could significantly shape the contours of international environmental law and global climate governance. Continue reading >>
0
06 June 2025
A New Look at Confiscating Russian Assets
In the near future, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) may issue its first compensation awards against Russia for its conduct in the war in Ukraine. When that happens, the question of how to enforce such awards will become paramount. Given Russia’s lack of cooperation, claimants may seek to enforce compensation awards in third states holding Russian assets, a promising yet untested avenue. Drawing from a recent report by Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), this post explores some of the legal hurdles this avenue entails as well as some of its broader implications. We believe that this approach could be a limited but significant instrument to redress harm for victims of human rights abuse committed in the war. Continue reading >>
0
29 April 2024
The European Court of Human Rights’ April 9 Climate Rulings and the Future (Thereof)
By recognizing the responsibility they have toward future individuals who will be standing in their shoes, current decision-makers are encouraged to adopt long-term perspectives and consider the broader implications of their actions beyond the immediate. This responsibility is echoed in numerous statements by the ECtHR in its rulings about how it understands its own role in European society and the world, and about the deference it believes it owes to domestic decision-makers on the one hand, and to its own past and future work on the other hand. In this light, the ECtHR has struck a pragmatic yet slightly cynical balance between the great demands it was faced with and the great responsibilities it owes to European citizens, to other institutions, and to itself. Continue reading >>05 December 2023
From Urgenda to Klimaatzaak
On November 30, the Brussels Court of Appeal handed down its ruling in VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others, commonly known as “the Belgian climate case.” The ruling is clear: Belgian authorities failed to participate adequately in the global effort to curb global warming, and they must imperatively reduce their emissions. Subscribing fully to Matthias Petel and Norman Vander Putten’s sharp analysis of how this litigation saga embodies tensions between climate justice and the separation of powers, we wish to highlight three remarkable aspects of the case. After quickly summarizing the first instance judgment and last week’s ruling, we begin by touching on the elephant in the (court)room: the articulation of the available scientific evidence with the limits of courts’ power of review and injunction. Then, we say a word about the Brussels Court of Appeal’s thorough application of European human rights law. We finish by deploring, as did the Court, Belgian federalism’s inefficiencies. Continue reading >>
0