Search Climate Insights Directory

This briefing by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) analyzes the implications of a July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change for international investment law. It argues that the ICJ's recognition of climate action as a binding legal obligation undermines investor claims based on 'legitimate expectations' for fossil fuel activities and provides states with stronger legal defenses against Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims.

This policy brief analyzes the July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, specifically focusing on how it affects the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). The document argues that the ICJ rejected the 'lex specialis' doctrine, ruling instead that climate obligations are integrated with other environmental treaties, human rights law, and customary international law.

This research paper examines the evolving landscape of critical minerals diplomacy, arguing that current multilateral trade rules are insufficient to balance the economic security needs of consuming nations with the industrialization goals of resource-rich developing countries. The author analyzes the rise of non-binding sectoral partnerships and plurilateral initiatives led by developed nations, warning that these may reinforce power asymmetries. The paper proposes utilizing the World Trade Organization (WTO) or regional groupings as more neutral platforms to establish a rules-based system that supports sustainable sourcing and domestic value addition in producer economies.

This technical noteC note by Climate Policy Initiative/PUC-Rio analyzes a February 11, 2026, decision by the Tribunal Regional Federal da 4ª Região (TRF-4) regarding a legal conflict between the Atlantic Forest Law (LMA) and the Forest Code. The TRF-4 extinguished a public civil action without judging the merits, effectively maintaining the application of the Forest Code's 'consolidated areas' regime in Paraná and avoiding the immediate imposition of the more restrictive 1990 temporal milestone for environmental regularization.

This briefing note by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2025 Advisory Opinion (AO) on climate change. It specifically examines how the AO's findings on State obligations—including the duty to prevent harm, stringent due diligence, and the precautionary principle—can be used to challenge reliance on speculative climate interventions (such as geoengineering and carbon capture) and offset-based mitigation measures that may delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

This briefing note analyzes the implications of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2025 advisory opinion on States' obligations to prevent environmental harm, specifically focusing on the financing of climate-destructive conduct. It outlines how the ICJ's findings can be used in litigation to challenge public and private funding of the fossil fuel sector and to enforce obligations for climate finance in developing nations.

This briefing, produced by a coalition of climate litigation practitioners, provides structured 'Litigation Notes' to help lawyers integrate the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, advisory opinion (AO) on States' climate obligations into legal cases. This specific note focuses on corporate conduct, detailing how the ICJ AO establishes State duties to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, to prevent significant environmental harm.

This briefing, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and partners, provides a structured 'Litigation Note' to help legal practitioners apply the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, advisory opinion (AO) on States' obligations regarding climate change. The document focuses specifically on the legal frameworks for remedies and reparations, detailing how the ICJ AO clarifies State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts related to climate harm and how these findings can be integrated into domestic, regional, and international litigation against both States and corporate actors.

This litigation note, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and its partners, provides a structured guide for lawyers to integrate the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2025 advisory opinion (AO) on climate change into adaptation-related litigation. It distills the ICJ's findings on State obligations under climate treaties and human rights law, emphasizing the legally binding nature of adaptation planning and financial support for developing nations.

This guide, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in February 2026, provides a structured digest of key excerpts from the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) unanimous advisory opinion (AO) delivered on 23 July 2025 regarding States' obligations in relation to climate change. The document is designed as a practical tool for climate litigation practitioners to integrate the ICJ's normative clarity into domestic, regional, and international legal cases.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the status of the global plastics treaty following the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee's fifth session (INC-5.3) in February 2026. It specifically evaluates the 'start-and-strengthen' approach—a model where a treaty is adopted with core obligations and progressively enhanced through future decisions—contrasting it with 'bottom-up' models based on voluntary national actions. The brief examines three draft texts from the Chair and various member state proposals, arguing that for a start-and-strengthen model to succeed, the treaty must include legally operative objectives, periodic effectiveness evaluations, and a procedural path for normative evolution, such as voting mechanisms to avoid deadlocks.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and partners examines the application of the Polluter-Pays Principle (PPP) to the PFAS pollution crisis. It argues that current implementation in the EU is inconsistent and that a comprehensive strategy is needed to shift the staggering financial burden of remediation and health costs from the public to the producers and users of PFAS.

Plan 1.5 issued a statement criticizing the South Korean government's proposed 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets, arguing they are unconstitutional and fail to meet minimum standards set by a previous Constitutional Court ruling.

This report analyzes 32 Air Service Agreements (ASAs) among COFFIS member states to identify legal pathways for implementing aviation fuel taxes to support climate targets and fuel efficiency.

This policy brief by the African Future Policies Hub analyzes the implications of the July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. The document argues that the ruling provides a legal and moral foundation to demand scaled-up climate finance, emphasizing the principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and the necessity of reparations. It specifically links the ruling to the Baku to Belém (B2B) Roadmap and the financing of the third generation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) leading up to COP30.

This issue note by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is paralyzed by its reliance on consensus-based decision-making. The report contends that this model allows a small minority of states to block ambitious climate action and proposes transitioning to a qualified majority voting system to accelerate progress and fulfill legal obligations to cooperate on climate change.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) submitted a statement to the OECD in September 2025 proposing a 'problem-driven' approach to investment treaty design. The document argues that investment treaties should evolve from static instruments of investor protection into active tools that support states' binding climate obligations, as highlighted by a July 2025 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion. IISD suggests a three-step framework: assessing the realistic capabilities and limitations of treaties, identifying specific climate-related policy problems (such as energy sector bottlenecks and fossil fuel subsidy reform), and determining specific avenues for positive contribution, including transparency requirements and mandatory responsible business conduct for investors.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, submitted comments on South Africa's Draft Second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The submission argues that the draft's mitigation targets are inadequate and lack ambition, proposing instead more stringent emission limits aligned with the 1.5°C global warming target. The CER also criticizes the lack of transparency in the process, specifically the late release of the underlying technical report, and calls for stronger integration of climate justice, adaptation measures, and a clear commitment to phasing out fossil fuels.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law analyzes a July 23, 2025, advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding States' obligations to address climate change. The ruling, adopted unanimously by 15 judges, establishes that States have binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system, phase out fossil fuels, and provide reparations for climate damage.

This briefing note from the Center for International Environmental Law outlines the legal obligations of States to protect the ocean from climate change by halting fossil fuel expansion and phasing out their use. It highlights the significance of climate advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in establishing these duties.