ICJ_AO_Litigation Notes

This briefing, produced by a coalition of climate litigation practitioners, provides structured 'Litigation Notes' to help lawyers apply the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, advisory opinion (AO) on States' climate obligations. Specifically, this note focuses on the ICJ's conclusion that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a binding norm of international law and a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights.

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a binding norm of international law and is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights, including the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living (which encompasses food, housing, and water).
• The ICJ defined the climate system as an element of the environment, adopting a definition equivalent to that of the UNFCCC and the IPCC, which includes the biosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, as well as their interactions.
• To ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights and the right to a healthy environment, States are required to protect the climate system and other environmental components. This may involve adopting legislation, setting standards, regulating private actors, and implementing adaptation and mitigation measures.
• The material scope of State conduct regarding climate obligations is not limited to direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It includes all actions or omissions—including production and consumption activities—that result in the climate system or environment being adversely affected by anthropogenic GHG emissions.
• A State may commit an internationally wrongful act by failing to protect the climate system, such as through the provision of subsidies, granting exploration licences, or failing to exercise due diligence in regulating emissions from private actors under its jurisdiction or effective control.
• The ICJ rejected the application of lex specialis to exclude other international law rules, affirming instead a 'systemic integration' approach. This means climate treaties do not displace other obligations, such as the right to a healthy environment, and that human rights law, environmental treaties, and customary obligations must be implemented in an integrated manner.
• Breaches of primary obligations related to climate change and the right to a healthy environment trigger legal consequences based on customary rules of State responsibility. These consequences include cessation, non-repetition, and full reparation, which aims to restore the situation to what it would have been without the unlawful act and can include satisfaction and restitution in addition to financial compensation.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). ICJ_AO_Litigation Notes. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ICJ_AO_Litigation-Note-on-the-Right-to-a-Healthy-Environment_Feb2026.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. ICJ_AO_Litigation Notes. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ICJ_AO_Litigation-Note-on-the-Right-to-a-Healthy-Environment_Feb2026.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=ICJ_AO_Litigation Notes |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ICJ_AO_Litigation-Note-on-the-Right-to-a-Healthy-Environment_Feb2026.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndicjaolitigation, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{ICJ\_AO\_Litigation Notes}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ICJ_AO_Litigation-Note-on-the-Right-to-a-Healthy-Environment_Feb2026.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }