Is Montevideo Sinking?

Following the ICJ’s opinion, only time will tell whether the Montevideo criteria are themselves “sinking,” and what might replace them. It remains doubtful whether sunken States could be sovereign equals to States with territory, as they would necessarily rely on the goodwill of their host State to cede jurisdiction to some degree. Even though the ICJ’s opinion is a big step forward (especially) for small island States, it cannot, by itself, preserve a State’s full sovereignty once its territory is submerged. Small island States have contributed the least to climate change, yet now face an existential threat. This unfair fate must be prevented. I

Statehood in the Climate Crisis

In this blog post, we zero in on the part of the ICJ's climate advisory opinion that concerns statehood. Specifically, we analyze the ICJ’s restatement of the presumption of state continuity, examining both what the Court says and doesn’t say, and what the implications could be. We also consider the individual opinions that discuss statehood and add some brief reflections on the applicability of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) and on State extinction. Our analysis is preliminary, and certainly much ink will be spilled on the ICJ’s remarks going forward.

When Custom Binds All States

The ICJ affirmed that States have binding customary obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system and to cooperate in addressing the crisis. Rejecting arguments that climate treaties override these duties, the Court clarified that non-parties remain bound. While acknowledging law’s limits, the ICJ’s opinion provides a powerful legal foundation to guide climate negotiations, litigation, and collective action worldwide.

“Occupation” as Euphemism

On 10 August, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gathered a press conference to explain an earlier cabinet decision “to occupy” Gaza. What he introduced, to the dismay of allied governments in Europe, was a military incursion on Gaza City and “the central camps and Mawasi.” Netanyahu promised a “non-Israeli civilian administration” and, in English, adjusted the earlier framing of the operation, which had by then been embraced and echoed in Israeli media: that plan is “not to occupy Gaza, but to free it.” Such rhetoric invites scrutiny – not only for the legal ramifications of the acts announced, but it also calls into attention the shifting uses of the word occupation in Israeli political discourse.

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?

Reproductive Violence in Tigray

A new July 2025 investigative report highlights the devastating weaponized sexual and reproductive violence unleashed during the 2020-2022 Tigray conflict in Ethiopia. Based on hundreds of medical records and health worker testimonies, the report documents mass rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, and sexual torture of Tigrayan women and children by Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers. The deliberate reproductive dimension of violence in Tigray constitutes clear violations of both the Maputo Protocol and international law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Weaponising Gender in South Africa’s Chief Justice Appointment

Ros Dixon argues that “[p]lacing women in high office reflects commitments to fairness, diversity and equality of opportunity. But it also creates opportunities for anti-feminist, would-be authoritarians to use women’s descriptive representation to advance and legitimate their own sexist, authoritarian projects”. The South African Judicial Services Commission’s interviews for the country’s Chief Justice in 2022 provide a fascinating example of this phenomenon in the context of political struggles around corruption and accountability in South Africa.

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.

Klarheit aus Den Haag

Am 23. Juli 2025 verkündete der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) sein lange erwartetes Gutachten zu den „Pflichten der Staaten in Bezug auf den Klimawandel“. Darin bestätigte das Gericht, dass Staaten nach geltendem Völkerrecht verpflichtet sind, erhebliche Schäden am Klimasystem zu verhindern. Kommen sie dieser Pflicht nicht nach, können sie haftbar gemacht werden. Das Gutachten hat tiefgreifende Konsequenzen für Produzenten fossiler Energieträger und zieht zudem erhebliche Auswirkungen auf das internationale Investitionsrecht nach sich.

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.