07 August 2025
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 >>
0 
06 August 2025
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 >>
0
05 August 2025
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 >>
0
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
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 >>
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
30 July 2025
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 >>
0
30 July 2025
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 >>
0
12 November 2024
A Piece of Advice
In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so. Continue reading >>
0
17 October 2024
The ICJ Advisory Opinion and Israeli Law
This post examines the relationship between the Advisory Opintion and Israeli law with respect to the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT. While the Opinion requires States to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in their dealings with Israel, and to omit acts that may strengthen Israel’s hold of the Territories, calls for such distinction are a civil tort under Israeli law, and those making them can be denied entry to Israel. As a result, Israelis are unlikely to support the Opinion. This will contribute to the growing gap between the international discourse and the domestic discourse in Israel with respect to the OPT. Continue reading >>
0