IN A NUTSHELL Climate Advisory Proceedings: Why Big Polluters’ Most Dangerous Arguments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Fail

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should apply the full spectrum of international law—including human rights, the law of the sea, and customary law—to determine State obligations regarding climate change. It counters arguments from 'big polluters' who claim that the UN climate regime (UNFCCC and Paris Agreement) is the sole relevant legal framework and that its obligations are merely procedural. The document asserts that States have longstanding duties to prevent transboundary environmental harm and protect human rights, which necessitates a phase-out of fossil fuels and the provision of reparations for climate-related injuries.

• The UN climate regime, including the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, does not replace or limit pre-existing international legal obligations. States' duties to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm and human rights violations exist independently of these agreements, and compliance with the UN climate regime does not discharge duties under other laws, such as the law of the sea.
• The Paris Agreement is a binding international agreement intended to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C, rather than a set of voluntary or purely procedural requirements. States are obligated to pursue nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and undertake ambitious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience.
• The customary international law duty to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm applies to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This duty extends to harm affecting other States and the global commons, including the atmosphere and oceans, regardless of whether the harm results from multiple concurrent sources.
• Climate change is characterized as a human rights crisis that triggers State obligations to prevent and minimize the violation of rights, such as the rights to life with dignity and self-determination. These obligations apply even if human rights law does not explicitly mention climate change or greenhouse gases.
• States have legal obligations to future generations based on the principle of intergenerational equity and various national constitutions. The document argues that failing to recognize these rights would deviate from longstanding legal principles.
• A phase-out of fossil fuels is a legal necessity for States to meet their obligations to prevent climate change and limit temperature rise to 1.5°C. The silence of the Paris Agreement regarding fossil fuels does not negate this obligation, as fossil fuels are the primary cause of the GHG emissions driving climate change.
• Major emitting States were aware of the link between fossil fuel combustion and global warming as early as the 1960s, with some scientific foundations dating back to the mid-1800s. This knowledge triggered legal duties to prevent GHG emissions at levels causing significant harm long before the formal UN climate agreements.
• Causation between a State's emissions and climate harm can be established through attribution science and cumulative emission calculations. Consequently, States can be held accountable for their proportional contribution to climate injury, and reparations may include debt cancellation, ecosystem restoration, and recognition of statehood for territories threatened by sea level rise.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (n.d.). IN A NUTSHELL Climate Advisory Proceedings: Why Big Polluters’ Most Dangerous Arguments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Fail. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/In-a-Nutshell-Climate-Advisory-Proceedings-Why-Big-Polluters-Most-Dangerous-Arguments-to-the-International-Court-of-Justice-ICJ-Fail.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. IN A NUTSHELL Climate Advisory Proceedings: Why Big Polluters’ Most Dangerous Arguments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Fail. n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/In-a-Nutshell-Climate-Advisory-Proceedings-Why-Big-Polluters-Most-Dangerous-Arguments-to-the-International-Court-of-Justice-ICJ-Fail.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=IN A NUTSHELL Climate Advisory Proceedings: Why Big Polluters’ Most Dangerous Arguments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Fail |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/In-a-Nutshell-Climate-Advisory-Proceedings-Why-Big-Polluters-Most-Dangerous-Arguments-to-the-International-Court-of-Justice-ICJ-Fail.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallawndnutshell, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{IN A NUTSHELL Climate Advisory Proceedings: Why Big Polluters’ Most Dangerous Arguments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Fail}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/In-a-Nutshell-Climate-Advisory-Proceedings-Why-Big-Polluters-Most-Dangerous-Arguments-to-the-International-Court-of-Justice-ICJ-Fail.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }