Articles for author: Antoine De Spiegeleir

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.

4. 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.

1. August 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.

24. Juli 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.

6. Juni 2025

, , , ,