TOP ARGUMENTS

This fact sheet by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes key arguments presented by States during the first week (December 2-6) of climate justice hearings at the International Court of Justice. It contrasts the positions of major polluting States against those of climate-vulnerable nations regarding the applicability of international law, human rights, transboundary harm, and reparations in the context of the climate crisis.

• Major polluting States argue that the UN climate regime, specifically the Paris Agreement, is the only relevant international law defining State obligations on climate change. They contend that the Paris Agreement consists primarily of voluntary commitments and that the Court should not identify additional duties from other sources of law.
• Polluting States claim that human rights law does not explicitly address climate change mitigation, does not require the phasing out of fossil fuels, and does not apply extraterritorially. The United States, Germany, and Russia specifically argued that the right to a healthy environment lacks international legal protection, despite its 2022 recognition by the UNGA.
• Major polluters argue against the possibility of climate reparations, claiming it is impossible to link a specific State's breach of international obligations to specific climate harms. They assert that because climate harms result from cumulative emissions by many States, no single State can be held accountable.
• Opposing the 'big polluters,' other nations argue that the ICJ should consider a broad universe of international law, including human rights law, the law of the sea, and customary law. They maintain that climate change is a human rights crisis that triggers State obligations to prevent rights violations and provide effective remedies.
• There is a dispute over transboundary harm; while big polluters claim the duty to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm does not apply to greenhouse gas emissions, others argue this customary international law obligation extends to the global commons, including the atmosphere and oceans.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). TOP ARGUMENTS. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CIEL_Climate-Justice-Hearings-ICJ_Analysis_Top-Arguments_Week-1.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. TOP ARGUMENTS. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CIEL_Climate-Justice-Hearings-ICJ_Analysis_Top-Arguments_Week-1.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=TOP ARGUMENTS |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CIEL_Climate-Justice-Hearings-ICJ_Analysis_Top-Arguments_Week-1.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndtop, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{TOP ARGUMENTS}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CIEL_Climate-Justice-Hearings-ICJ_Analysis_Top-Arguments_Week-1.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }