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. 

Crisis and Legal Scholarship

References to crisis abound. Since the 2008 financial crash and with the popularisation of the term “polycrisis” after the COVID-19 pandemic, the idea that we live in times of crises shapes public opinion, political discourse, and academic debates. A review of posts published on Verfassungsblog between January and July 2025 reveals an average of 15 posts per month mentioning some kind of crisis. Crisis is certainly a catchword, and these are hard to resist. But the pervasiveness of this term can also tell us something about the kind of knowledge produced by legal scholarship.

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.

Rodina And Borisova V. Latvia And The Principle Of Self-Defending Democracy

The ECtHR, in its recent judgment on 10 July 2025 in the case of Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia, examined the applicants’ complaints regarding the refusals of domestic authorities to authorize the assemblies they wished to hold on 9 May and 23 September 2014. The ECtHR analyzed the freedom of peaceful assembly within the context of the principle of self-defending democracy. It reaffirmed that no one should be permitted to invoke the provisions of the ECHR to weaken or destroy the ideals and values of a democratic society.

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.

Behemoth v. The Dual State in the Gaza War

Fraenkel’s The Dual State (1941) and Neumann’s Behemoth (1942) offer two diverging accounts of the legal reality under National Socialism. The controversy between the two is important not only for the Gaza War, but also for the future of international humanitarian law writ large. The picture, according to which if lawyers had more power post-World War I, democracies in Europe would not have collapsed, affected both constitutional and international law. Yet, the claim that Weimar and the world could have been saved if only the law and lawyers had possessed more power is inaccurate. We are now reliving the consequences of this mistake in the Gaza War.

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?

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.

Holistisch, praktisch, gut?

Am 24. Juli 2025 fiel das Urteil gegen Yekatom und Ngaïssona und mit ihm ein Stück klassischer Dogmatik im Völkerstrafrecht. Unter Effizienzdruck setzte der IStGH auf Tempo, Kontext und strukturierte Gesamtschau statt auf starre Zurechnungs- und Beweisregeln. Ein Verfahren, das nicht nur Täter verurteilte, sondern auch Maßstäbe für die Rolle der Verfahrensführung in der internationalen Strafjustiz verschob.