copy-for-spanish-icj-ao_litigation-notes-digest_feb2026-2.0-fc3f7f8fe10f06a5.pdf

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change into practical legal tools for climate litigation. It details State obligations under international treaties (UNFCCC, Paris Agreement) and customary law, emphasizing a 'rigorous' due diligence standard to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The guide covers specific litigation areas including government framework cases, adaptation, reparations, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions (like geoengineering), and regulatory backsliding, providing key quotes and illustrative case examples for each.

• The ICJ definitively established that 1.5°C is the primary temperature goal of the Paris Agreement for limiting the increase in the global average temperature.
• States are subject to a 'rigorous' due diligence standard when preparing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), requiring them to exert their 'maximum possible ambition' to meet the Agreement's goals.
• The ICJ ruled that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a binding norm of international law and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other human rights, such as the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.
• Under customary international law, States have an independent obligation to prevent significant damage to the climate system and other environmental components, regardless of whether they are party to climate treaties.
• State responsibility for climate damage is not negated by the fact that multiple actors contribute to the harm; it is scientifically possible to determine the total contribution of each State to global emissions, including historical and current emissions.
• Obligations under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement are characterized as 'erga omnes' (towards all), meaning any State party has a legal interest in their protection and can invoke the responsibility of other States for non-compliance.
• Legal consequences for breaching climate obligations include the full range of State responsibility: cessation of the illicit act, guarantees of non-repetition, and full reparation, which may include restitution (e.g., restoring ecosystems), economic compensation, or satisfaction (e.g., formal apologies).
• States have a legally binding obligation to provide financial resources to developing countries for both mitigation and adaptation, an obligation that must be interpreted in light of the 1.5°C temperature goal.
• The ICJ emphasizes that the precautionary principle dictates that a lack of absolute scientific certainty regarding the risks of speculative technologies (such as geoengineering or carbon offsets) should not justify their use if they pose risks of serious or irreversible damage or delay effective mitigation.
• Regulatory backsliding—such as weakening emission standards or removing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements—may constitute an internationally wrongful act if it violates the strict due diligence required to prevent significant climate damage.

APA

Avila, L., Campos, M., Chowdhury, J., Dey, R., Dutta, R., Fournier, L., Alves, D. B. G., Lennon, E., Main-Klingst, L., Masiye-Moyo, N., Pfitzner, L., Reisch, N., Shetye, A., Slidders, C., Tan, F., Udell, J., & van Es, C. (2026). copy-for-spanish-icj-ao_litigation-notes-digest_feb2026-2.0-fc3f7f8fe10f06a5.pdf. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Copy-for-Spanish-ICJ-AO_Litigation-Notes-Digest_Feb2026-2.0.pdf

Chicago

Avila, Liliana, Mariana Campos, Joie Chowdhury, Riddhi Dey, Ritwick Dutta, Louise Fournier, Danilo B. Garrido Alves, et al. copy-for-spanish-icj-ao_litigation-notes-digest_feb2026-2.0-fc3f7f8fe10f06a5.pdf. Center for International Environmental Law, 2026. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Copy-for-Spanish-ICJ-AO_Litigation-Notes-Digest_Feb2026-2.0.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Avila |first1=Liliana |last2=Campos |first2=Mariana |last3=Chowdhury |first3=Joie |last4=Dey |first4=Riddhi |last5=Dutta |first5=Ritwick |last6=Fournier |first6=Louise |last7=Alves |first7=Danilo B. Garrido |last8=Lennon |first8=Erika |last9=Main-Klingst |first9=Lea |display-authors=etal |title=copy-for-spanish-icj-ao_litigation-notes-digest_feb2026-2.0-fc3f7f8fe10f06a5.pdf |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=February 2026 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Copy-for-Spanish-ICJ-AO_Litigation-Notes-Digest_Feb2026-2.0.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{avila2026copyforspanishicjaolitigationnotesdigestfeb202620fc3f7f8fe10f06a5pdf, author = {Avila, Liliana and Campos, Mariana and Chowdhury, Joie and Dey, Riddhi and Dutta, Ritwick and Fournier, Louise and Alves, Danilo B. Garrido and Lennon, Erika and Main-Klingst, Lea and Masiye-Moyo, Nomasango and Pfitzner, Linn and Reisch, Nikki and Shetye, Aditi and Slidders, Charles and Tan, Floris and Udell, Joe and van Es, Catherine}, title = {{copy-for-spanish-icj-ao\_litigation-notes-digest\_feb2026-2.0-fc3f7f8fe10f06a5.pdf}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2026}, month = feb, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Copy-for-Spanish-ICJ-AO_Litigation-Notes-Digest_Feb2026-2.0.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }