Que signifie l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice sur le changement climatique pour l’évaluation de l’impact environnemental?

The document examines how a July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion mandates that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for fossil fuel projects include emissions from the final combustion of the extracted fuels. It highlights that while states determine the exact content of EIAs, they must account for downstream effects to meet due diligence and Paris Agreement obligations. The briefing cites precedents in the UK and EFTA Court, as well as subsequent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights and the Borgarting Court of Appeal, to demonstrate the growing legal requirement to quantify end-use greenhouse gas emissions.

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in its July 2025 advisory opinion that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for fossil fuel projects must account for emissions resulting from the end-use combustion of the extracted fuels.
• The ICJ's ruling addresses a gap where previous EIAs for fossil fuel extraction typically only focused on operational emissions, despite 75% to 85% of associated greenhouse gas emissions occurring during final consumption.
• While individual states determine the specific content of an EIA through national legislation or project authorization, this must be interpreted in light of the ICJ's requirement to evaluate downstream effects when relevant.
• Judges Bhandari and Cleveland stated that the obligation to include end-use consequences in risk assessments stems from due diligence and obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement.
• The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Borgarting Court of Appeal have already applied the ICJ's reasoning, ruling that EIAs for oil and gas projects must include a quantification of predicted greenhouse gas emissions, including combustion both domestically and abroad.
• The document recommends that states update laws and guidelines to ensure that the 'substitution' argument—the claim that production would happen elsewhere regardless—does not exempt a project from evaluating end-use emissions.

APA

Jones, N. (2026). Que signifie l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice sur le changement climatique pour l’évaluation de l’impact environnemental? International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2026-03/icj-advisory-opinion-environmental-impact-assessment-fr.pdf

Chicago

Jones, Natalie. Que signifie l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice sur le changement climatique pour l’évaluation de l’impact environnemental? International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2026. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2026-03/icj-advisory-opinion-environmental-impact-assessment-fr.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Jones |first1=Natalie |title=Que signifie l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice sur le changement climatique pour l’évaluation de l’impact environnemental? |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=March 2026 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2026-03/icj-advisory-opinion-environmental-impact-assessment-fr.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{jones2026que, author = {Jones, Natalie}, title = {{Que signifie l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice sur le changement climatique pour l’évaluation de l’impact environnemental?}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2026}, month = mar, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2026-03/icj-advisory-opinion-environmental-impact-assessment-fr.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }