Articles for category: Focus

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.

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.

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?

Mia Yamamoto

Her story is one of courage, sacrifice and solidarity with those pushed to society’s periphery: for decades, Mia Yamamoto hid her true self as a trans woman while fiercely advocating for the marginalized and uniting diverse groups to amplify unheard voices. Since birth, she has shared the fate of the incarcerated – a reality that continues to shape her to this day.

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.

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.

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.

International Rulings and the UK–Mauritius Chagos Agreement

On 22 May 2025, following negotiations that began in November 2022 and a joint statement of 3 October 2024 (to learn more, see Sebastian von Massow), the United Kingdom and Mauritius concluded an Agreement, stating that “Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago in its entirety, including Diego Garcia” (Article 1). The Chagos Agreement is not only a diplomatic achievement, but also a “contractual transposition” of the decisions of international courts and tribunals.

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.

Enhanced Due Diligence

The IACtHR establishes that States have a series of obligations to ensure a healthy environment and climate, and prevent violations of human rights. To this end, the IACtHR develops the standard of enhanced due diligence as a binding framework for State action. This standard includes elements aimed at ensuring that the response to climate change is effective, fair, transparent, and evidence-based (para. 224). This blog post discusses the heightened due diligence standard, as clarified by the IACtHR, and outlines nine key elements of this standard.