A Panoply of Consequences?
Among the most significant – but underexplored – aspects of the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion is its treatment of reparations and remedies. This blog post unpacks the legal consequences outlined by the ICJ, examining what the opinion says – and does not say – about how climate-related harm should be remedied. At the heart of this analysis lies a central question: can the affirmation of legal responsibility, without clear guidance on the design of reparations, meaningfully advance climate justice?
Continue reading >>
Harmonizing Sources, Hardening Duties
The ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change may come to be remembered as the moment international law explicitly rose to the climate challenge. Yet, what the opinion offers is not a new edifice but a sturdier legal architecture. By advancing an “all of the above” approach to international law’s sources; by treating these sources as interlocking parts of a living legal system; and by recognizing erga omnes and erga omnes partes duties with concrete consequences for responsibility, the Court has given States, courts and litigants a legally rigorous, source‑sensitive map.
Continue reading >>
Of Warming and Warzones
Despite mounting attention to the impacts of military activities and conflicts on climate mitigation and adaptation in recent years, the issue remains largely absent from international legal scrutiny. Therefore, the very fact that several States and organizations raised it during the advisory proceedings held last December left the few scholars and practitioners working on this issue hopeful. This post reviews how the issue of armed conflicts and military emissions was addressed during the ICJ advisory proceedings. Despite the ICJ’s silence, the post highlights a few interpretative openings that may have legal implications for the regulation of wartime climate harms and explores what the ICJ’s ruling means for the legal visibility and accountability of military emissions.
Continue reading >>
State Responsibility and the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change
After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, many observers were quick to conclude that it “[opens] the door to a cascade of lawsuits” (Politico). The opinion is indeed an important confirmation that the rules of State responsibility apply in the climate change context. In this post, I assess the ICJ’s treatment of State responsibility in light of the particularities of climate change, especially the plurality of States that contribute to, and suffer from, climate harm. The advisory opinion places trust in the capabilities and flexibility of the applicable rules, yet defers complex decisions on questions like causation to a case-by-case assessment.
Continue reading >>
The Struggle Against Fossil Sovereignty
Over the course of decades, law has primarily functioned to enable and support the extraction, production, and consumption of fossil energy. As a result, planetary destruction remains not only awfully lucrative but also, in many cases, legally protected. The substantive impact of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change will depend largely on how effectively it contributes to dismantling the stronghold of fossil sovereignty. That tangled web of fossil-friendly laws has often obstructed or blunted progressive climate politics or any other interference with unsustainable, fossil-driven profit-making.
Continue reading >>
New Standards in Government Framework Litigation
The ICJ advisory opinion articulates very clearly States’ international obligations with respect to climate change. Its findings that States’ mitigation efforts must reflect their highest possible ambition, be capable of achieving the 1.5oC goal, and be fair and ambitious, determined through the application of CBDR-RC are momentous, as are its conclusions on remedies. Government framework litigation can serve to hold States to these obligations – just as plaintiffs have done for the past 10 years. Given the multitude of lawsuits pending against governments around the world.
Continue reading >>
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 >>
Human Rights in the ICJ’s Climate Opinion
This summer has seen two major climate advisory opinions published – first from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and then from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Both opinions address human rights law, embedding human rights in a broader overarching framework of international law that also includes international climate treaties and customary international law. But how do these opinions compare, and what room does the ICJ leave for continuing development of human rights standards by other relevant courts and treaty bodies?
Continue reading >>
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 >>
What the Court Didn’t Say
The aim of this blog post is not to summarise the ICJ’s opinion or assess its overall relevance for international law. Instead, it draws attention to some of the issues that the ICJ did not address, or where it might have gone further, by providing more depth, precision, and guidance. By focusing on what the ICJ did not say, we can gain a better understanding of how it navigates its institutional constraints, political sensitivities, and the evolving terrain of international climate litigation.
Continue reading >>
A Right Foundational to Humanity’s Existence
For the second time in a month, one of the world’s highest judicial authorities has issued an advisory opinion on the climate crisis that highlights the importance of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Echoing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion 32/25, on July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously held that this right constitutes a binding norm of international law.
Continue reading >>
A Single Paragraph’s Promise
One topic in the ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change has unfortunately garnered little attention: climate-induced displacement. The ICJ dedicates just one single, 105-word paragraph to this pressing issue. Still, this one seemingly modest paragraph may have profound implications for millions of people fleeing across borders due to climate change, potentially reshaping the legal landscape for those seeking protection and at least offering minimum guarantees against their removal to a place where they would be at risk.
Continue reading >>
Why Courts will not Stop Global Warming, but Climate Litigation is Still Useful
Despite the global trend of record temperatures and the increasing number of disasters caused by extreme weather events, the political impetus to combat global warming is weakening all over Europe. Not only far-right forces want to stop ambitious climate policy, but also other political parties tend to neglect this field. To counter those political forces, climate litigation tries to hold national governments accountable to their goals as enshrined in the Paris Agreement. Courts represent one of the arenas in the struggle for climate protection. However, the battle is ultimately won or lost in the legislative arena.
Continue reading >>
Eine gesetzliche Pflicht zur Klimaanpassung
Verstärkte Anstrengungen, den menschengemachten Klimawandel abzubremsen, sind dringend notwendig, vielleicht dringender denn je. Aber selbst wenn sie unternommen werden, sind wir schon heute mit den (nunmehr) unabwendbaren Folgen des Klimawandels konfrontiert und werden es in Zukunft noch stärker sein. Starkregenereignisse, Dürreperioden, Hitze und damit einhergehende Gefahren für Mensch, Tier und Umwelt sind bereits spürbare Realität, weswegen kein Weg an der Klimaanpassung durch Schutz- und Vorsorgemaßnahmen vorbeiführt. Solche Anpassung ist nicht kostenlos zu haben, aber immer noch günstiger, als die klimawandelbedingten Schäden zahlen zu müssen. Es ist deshalb begrüßenswert, dass die Ampel-Koalition das bereits im Koalitionsvertrag avisierte Vorhaben eines Bundes-Klimaanpassungsgesetzes angegangen ist und ein solches am 16.11.2023 im Bundestag beschlossen hat.
Continue reading >>
The Belgian Climate Case
On November 30, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a landmark decision in the climate case brought by “Klimaatzaak” (“climate case” in Dutch) against Belgian public authorities (the federal and the three regional governments). In this decision, the court found the federal authority and the Brussels and Flemish regions’ climate action to be in violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR and of their duty of care, and imposed a minimal GHG reduction target to be reached by Belgian authorities for the future. In their blogpost, Alice Briegleb and Antoine De Spiegeleir provide a clear overview of the case, exploring its previous stages and insisting on the continuing failures of the Belgian climate governance and its complex federal structure. We focus on our part on how the decision makes it clear that the climate justice movement is now confronted with the tension between the legally required and the ethically desirable parameters of climate effort distribution.
Continue reading >>
Schulden- statt Notbremse
Wer – als Gericht – strenge Maßstäbe an Gesetzesbegründungen anlegt, Darlegungspflichten verschärft und einer Regierung auf dem, weiß Gott, steinigen Weg zur Transformation der Wirtschaft in die Parade fährt, muss sich an diesen – seinen eigenen – Maßstäben messen lassen und eine von Kriterien geleitete, geordnete Präzisierung des Außergewöhnlichen einer Notlage vorlegen. Daran scheitert der Zweite Senat. Das wäre unter Umständen nicht weiter aufgefallen, hätte sich der Zweite Senat darauf verstehen können, wenigstens die Nichtigkeit des Zweiten Nachtragshaushaltsgesetzes zurückzustellen und den Darlegungsangeboten der Regierung(smehrheit) zu Krisenkonnexität und Krisenbewältigung näher zu treten.
Continue reading >>Undermining the Energy Transition
Australia is confronted with three multi-billion dollar investment treaty claims from a mining company. The basis for two of the claims is a judgment from the Queensland Land Court, in which the court recommended that no mining lease and environmental authority should be granted to a subsidiary of the claimant for its coal mine. The investment treaty arbitration serves as another illustration of how the international investment protection system poses a threat to an urgent and just energy transition. In this blog post, I explain the background of the investment treaty claim, the decision of the Queensland Land Court, and argue that the Court’s decision is an important precedent for the connection between coal, climate change, and human rights.
Continue reading >>