Articles for author: Maria Antonia Tigre

A Blueprint for Rights-Based Climate Action

,

&

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion No. 32—the most important and progressive document yet released by an international court on the climate crisis. The IACtHR’s findings are as comprehensive as they are groundbreaking, spanning areas from procedural requirements for mitigation measures to the protection of environmental defenders. This post launches a blog symposium on the advisory opinion and discusses ten key takeaways, chosen to illustrate the opinion’s legal and practical significance.

9. Juli 2025

, , , ,

The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

On May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a long-awaited Advisory Opinion on climate change and international law. This marks the first time that an international tribunal has issued an advisory opinion on State obligations regarding climate change mitigation. The Advisory Opinion addresses several key questions regarding application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the context of climate change. There is much to explore in terms of both the content of the ITLOS advisory opinion and its potential implications for global, regional, and local efforts to combat climate change. To facilitate discussion and the exchange of ideas, the Sabin Center's Climate Law Blog and Verfassungsblog are partnering on a blog symposium on the ITLOS opinion. In this first, introductory blog, we outline the background to the advisory opinion and highlight some of the key takeaways from it.

22. Mai 2024

, , , ,

The Local Case Against Climate Deception

Over the last five years, cities, counties, and states across the country have sued fossil fuel companies alleging that the companies violated state law in marketing their products as safe. Collectively, these cases are known as climate liability cases or climate deception cases. On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a petition on whether the climate liability cases should be heard in state or federal court. As a result, 11 cases will be remanded to state court to move towards motions to dismiss, discovery, and trial. The Supreme Court’s decision also helps plaintiffs in more than a dozen other cases argue that their cases against fossil fuel companies should be heard in state court, rather than federal court, and it may help spur more state court filings. This is a big win for the city, county, and state plaintiffs, after they engaged in a five-year fight to keep the cases in state court.

13. Mai 2023

, , ,