Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that states must update their laws and regulations to ensure that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) include downstream and Scope 3 emissions from fossil fuel projects. It provides specific recommendations to prevent industry loopholes, such as presuming all produced fuels will be burned and ignoring arguments that production would simply shift to other projects. This guidance follows an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion and aligns with rulings from the UK Supreme Court and the EFTA Court.

The ICJ has ruled that end-use emissions from burning extracted fossil fuels must be factored into environmental impact assessments (EIAs). To mitigate legal risks, states are advised to update regulations to account for all downstream and Scope 3 emissions, regardless of whether production would have occurred elsewhere. The brief recommends that these emissions be assessed cumulatively and in alignment with global climate objectives.

This briefing by the International Institute for Sustainable Development examines the implications of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, specifically regarding climate adaptation. It argues that adaptation is a binding legal obligation under customary international law and climate treaties, rather than a voluntary domestic policy choice, requiring states to exercise due diligence to prevent foreseeable climate harm.

The document examines the role of the proposed UN Legally Binding Instrument (LBI) in addressing corporate impunity for environmental and human rights abuses. It argues that existing voluntary frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, are inadequate because they lack enforceable obligations. The LBI is presented as a mechanism to turn the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (RtHE) into actionable obligations, including strict liability for parent companies and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The text highlights specific cases of corporate harm in Uganda, Chile, Senegal, India, Brazil, Colombia, Serbia, Iraq, and the 'Lithium Triangle' to illustrate the need for binding regulation. It also discusses how recent Advisory Opinions from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reinforce the necessity of state-led regulation of private actors to prevent climate and environmental harm.

The document advocates for a legally binding international treaty to end corporate impunity for environmental and human rights abuses, highlighting the insufficiency of voluntary frameworks and the potential of the UN's Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG) process to establish enforceable obligations, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and effective remedies for affected communities.

ClientEarth argues that the Vision 2040 for fisheries and aquaculture must move beyond 'paper commitments' by integrating environmental, climate, and fisheries laws. The organization emphasizes the need for tangible, measurable targets, the phase-out of harmful subsidies, and a shift in funding toward small-scale fishers and marine restoration to ensure Europe's strategic autonomy and food security.

ClientEarth argues that the MSFD has failed to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) by its 2020 deadline and proposes a revision that turns GES into a binding 'obligation of result'. The response calls for clear, quantifiable EU-wide thresholds, the introduction of interim targets, and a strict non-deterioration obligation. It emphasizes the need for policy coherence between the MSFD and the proposed Ocean Act, as well as the alignment of fisheries management and climate obligations with marine protection. Furthermore, it advocates for dedicated funding streams and the introduction of robust compliance mechanisms, including access to justice, dissuasive penalties, and a right to compensation for damages resulting from breaches of the directive.

The document examines how the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion shifts climate adaptation from a voluntary domestic policy choice to a legally binding international obligation. It details the procedural and substantive obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, the application of a 'due diligence' standard to assess state compliance, and the binding requirements for developed countries to provide adaptation finance and support. The brief also highlights the intersection of adaptation with international human rights law and other multilateral environmental agreements, recommending that states integrate these frameworks to ensure legal robustness and effective resilience.

The document examines how the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion shifts climate adaptation from a voluntary national choice to a binding international legal obligation. It details the procedural and substantive requirements for states, the application of the 'due diligence' standard to evaluate compliance, and the mandatory role of developed countries in providing financial and technical support to developing nations. The briefing also highlights the intersection of adaptation with human rights and other multilateral environmental agreements.

The document analyzes how a 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion establishes that states must include end-use emissions (downstream effects) in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for fossil fuel projects. It highlights that while the opinion is non-binding, it provides authoritative legal guidance that is already influencing national and regional courts in the UK, Norway, and the EU. The brief recommends that governments update their regulations to require the quantification of combustion emissions and align these assessments with global climate objectives, such as IPCC 1.5°C pathways, to mitigate legal risks.

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 briefing examines the legal implications of the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate change, arguing that the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act. It extends this reasoning to other harmful subsidies, such as those in agriculture and plastics, and provides recommendations for states to reduce legal risk through transparent, phased reforms and international coordination via the Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives Including Subsidies (COFFIS).

The document argues that the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion transforms the removal of fossil fuel subsidies from a political commitment into a legal imperative, as such subsidies may constitute an 'internationally wrongful act'. It suggests this reasoning extends to other harmful subsidies, such as those in agriculture and plastics, increasing the legal risk for states. The briefing recommends that governments implement transparent, gradual phase-out plans, prioritize social protection over production subsidies, and coordinate internationally through initiatives like the Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives including Subsidies (COFFIS).

The document argues that the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion transforms the legal landscape for investment disputes by establishing that climate action is a binding legal obligation rather than a discretionary policy choice. This shift undermines investor claims based on 'legitimate expectations' for fossil fuel activities and provides states with stronger defenses against claims of unfair and inequitable treatment (FET) or indirect expropriation. The author recommends that states reform investment treaties to exclude climate measures from compensation claims, limit prospective damages based on future fossil fuel revenues, and negotiate agreements to neutralize survival clauses in treaties like the Energy Charter Treaty.

The document analyzes how the ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion rejects the 'lex specialis' doctrine, establishing that the UN climate regime and other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), human rights law, and customary international law mutually inform and reinforce one another. It argues that states must integrate climate considerations into the implementation of treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to demonstrate due diligence and avoid legal consequences for non-compliance.

The ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion establishes that states have binding legal obligations to protect the climate system, which includes phasing out fossil fuel production and subsidies. This finding challenges the legal basis for many investor-state claims, as it undermines the 'legitimate expectations' of investors in carbon-intensive industries and provides states with stronger defenses against claims of fair and equitable treatment (FET) violations. The brief argues that the prospect of ISDS can cause 'regulatory chill,' deterring necessary climate action. It recommends that states reform investment treaties through sector-based carve-outs, restrict forward-looking damages based on projected fossil fuel revenues, and coordinate withdrawals from outdated agreements like the Energy Charter Treaty.

The document examines the 2025 ICJ advisory opinion, which establishes that climate obligations are not isolated to the UN climate regime but are reinforced by other multilateral environmental agreements and human rights law. It argues that states must implement these obligations in an integrated manner to demonstrate due diligence and avoid legal consequences for inaction.

The document highlights a critical gap in investment governance: while international investment treaties have undergone significant reform, investor-state contracts remain largely marginalized and outdated. These contracts often contain stabilization clauses and tax incentives that restrict a state's regulatory space and can neutralize treaty-level safeguards. The brief also notes a rise in contract-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which is often more opaque than treaty-based arbitration. To address these risks, the authors recommend strengthening national institutional coordination, centralizing and assessing existing contracts, and developing national model contracts. Globally, they advocate for integrating contract reform into broader investment governance discussions and developing regional guidance to reduce negotiation asymmetries.

The policy brief highlights how investment contracts—often overlooked in favor of treaty reforms—can create regulatory restrictions and financial losses for states. It identifies risks from outdated stabilization clauses and tax incentives, and notes a rise in contract-based investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases. The authors propose a three-pronged national strategy: strengthening inter-ministerial coordination, creating centralized contract inventories, and developing national model contracts aligned with international sustainability standards.

The document analyzes the tension between existing WTO trade rules and the needs of countries to secure critical minerals for the energy transition. It argues that current 'critical minerals diplomacy'—characterized by non-binding sectoral partnerships among developed nations—creates power asymmetries and 'selective delegalization' that disadvantage producer economies. The author suggests that the WTO could serve as a more neutral platform for a plurilateral critical minerals initiative or a code of best practices to balance supply-side industrialization goals with demand-side security needs.