Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has established climate action as a binding legal obligation, meaning investment protections cannot override a state's climate duties. It suggests that this ruling challenges the legal basis of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) claims against climate regulations, such as coal phase-outs or drilling bans. The brief recommends that states implement specific climate exclusion clauses in treaties, restrict prospective damages based on speculative future revenues, terminate obsolete investment treaties, and pursue a fundamental reform of the international investment regime.

Analysis of the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker (GOGET) reveals that the time from discovery to production for new oil and gas fields has increased significantly, averaging 15.1 years for fields starting in 2025 compared to 4.9 years between 1960 and 1980. This trend is driven by the depletion of easy-to-access reserves, forcing companies toward technically complex '20K' high-pressure reservoirs, deepwater projects, and 'acid gas' fields. Additional delays stem from stricter environmental regulations, such as the UK's 2025 requirement to include Scope 3 emissions in impact assessments, and ecological risks in protected areas. The report argues that these long lead times increase the risk of creating stranded assets and conflict with the 1.5 °C warming limit, suggesting that capital should be redirected toward renewable energy.

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 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 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 report examines the governance of copper and lithium in Chile, highlighting a significant gap between international sustainability principles and territorial realities. Through case studies in Tarapacá and Antofagasta, it identifies critical failures in indigenous participation, water management, and the equitable distribution of mining royalties. While the 2023 National Lithium Strategy is noted as a step toward state control and sustainability, the document argues that a just transition requires binding community participation, transparent fiscal management, and regional economic diversification to avoid reproducing historical extractivist inequalities.

The report analyzes the governance of energy transition minerals in Colombia, focusing on copper and nickel. Through case studies of the Quebradona project and the Cerro Matoso mine, it identifies systemic failures in environmental mitigation, human rights protections, and benefit distribution. It argues that current regulatory frameworks are insufficient to prevent the 'enclave economy' model and proposes seven priority safeguard areas—including mandatory environmental licensing for exploration and strengthened prior consultation—to align Colombian mining with a just energy transition.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Natural Justice (NJ) argue that the proposed MIR for onshore exploration in South Africa lacks the specificity, enforceable standards, and climate integration necessary to protect environmental integrity and community interests. They recommend mandatory greenhouse gas accounting, a regional cumulative impact assessment, and a comprehensive public health baseline. Technical experts in the document highlight critical gaps in groundwater monitoring, the absence of a risk-based 'traffic light protocol' for induced seismicity, and the need for transparent chemical disclosure of fracturing fluids. The authors ultimately argue that hydraulic fracturing is incompatible with South Africa's climate commitments and water scarcity, suggesting it should be prohibited.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change into practical legal tools for climate litigation. It details State obligations under international treaties (UNFCCC, Paris Agreement) and customary law, emphasizing a 'rigorous' due diligence standard to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The guide covers specific litigation areas including government framework cases, adaptation, reparations, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions (like geoengineering), and regulatory backsliding, providing key quotes and illustrative case examples for each.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks. It emphasizes that States have binding obligations to limit warming to 1.5°C, act with 'stringent' due diligence based on the best available science (IPCC), and protect human rights. The notes detail how these findings can be used to challenge inadequate NDCs, hold corporations accountable for emissions, and oppose the dismantling of environmental protections.

The document translates the ICJ's advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on the 'stringent due diligence' States must exercise to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that States may be in breach of international obligations if they fail to prevent significant climate harm through the production, licensing, or subsidizing of fossil fuels. The brief also connects these findings to specific case categories, including licensing, duty to regulate, corporate frameworks, accountability for loss and damage, and greenwashing, emphasizing the 1.5°C temperature goal as a legal standard.

The document analyzes how the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion (AO) establishes a 'stringent due diligence' standard for States to prevent significant harm to the climate system. It argues that regulatory rollbacks, such as easing emission standards or removing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements, may constitute internationally wrongful acts. The note provides specific legal excerpts from the AO and applies them to various categories of litigation, including challenges to diluted mitigation standards, weakened land-use protections, and procedural rollbacks. A detailed annex examines recent regulatory shifts in India—including thermal power emission norms, forest governance changes under the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023, and EIA exemptions—as examples of conduct that may breach the ICJ's established standards.

The document translates the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on government framework cases, adaptation, remedies, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks.

The High Seas Treaty, formally the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ agreement), enters into force on January 17, 2026. It establishes a global framework to protect biodiversity in international waters, which cover roughly two-thirds of the ocean and previously lacked comprehensive governance. The treaty is built on four pillars: area-based management tools (including marine protected areas), rules for sharing benefits from marine genetic resources, capacity building and technology transfer for low-income countries, and standardized environmental impact assessments for activities like marine carbon dioxide removal. While it does not replace Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) for setting quotas, it aims to influence fisheries through ecosystem-based management. As of January 15, 2026, 83 parties have ratified the agreement. Implementation now depends on the BBNJ Preparatory Commission and the first Conference of Parties (BBNJ COP) to finalize governing structures, financial mechanisms, and operational logistics.

The document outlines the legal right of communities to participate in environmental decision-making for onshore oil and gas projects. It details the two primary phases of the EIA process—Scoping and the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)—and provides a structured set of questions to help citizens identify impacts on health, water, livelihoods, and climate change when submitting formal comments.

The 2026 ESMP for Jomotshangkha Wildlife Sanctuary outlines mitigation strategies for four key activities: lowland grassland restoration, waterhole maintenance, bio-engineering at the Tashithang landslide area, and a 5-hectare plantation at Lauri. The plan categorizes the project as 'Category B,' meaning impacts are site-specific and reversible. It details environmental risks such as invasive species spread and soil erosion, and social risks including worker safety from wildlife attacks and potential disruption of grazing rights. The document specifies a total budget of Nu. 2,000,000 and mandates compliance with both Royal Government of Bhutan laws and WWF's Social Safeguards Integrated Policies and Procedures.

The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) for Wangchuck Centennial National Park (WCNP) for 2026 focuses on the 'Improvement of alpine Meadows by clearing invading shrubs' activity. Categorized as a Category B project under the Bhutan for Life (BFL) framework, the plan identifies site-specific, reversible risks and outlines mitigation strategies to protect workers, biodiversity, and soil stability. The project, budgeted at Nu. 650,000, aims to expand grazing lands for yak-herding communities in Chokhor Gewog and preserve habitats for key prey species of predators like snow leopards and tigers.

The ESMP for Biological Corridor 03 (Sarpang) outlines the environmental and social safeguards for 2026 activities at the Southern Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (SWRRC). Categorized as a Category B project, the plan focuses on the maintenance of animal enclosures and a 700m access road, with a budget of Nu. 7,424,364. It identifies potential risks such as flooding and sedimentation of the Bhur stream, construction waste, and worker health hazards, providing specific mitigation measures for each. The document also details strict occupational health and safety (OHS) standards, stakeholder engagement protocols, and grievance redressal mechanisms aligned with both Royal Government of Bhutan laws and WWF's Social Safeguards Integrated Policies and Procedures.

The ESMP for Biological Corridor 07 (BC-7) in Bhutan outlines mitigation strategies for four planned activities in 2026: operational support for the Yangbari eco-camp, re-electrification of staff quarters in Lhuentse, establishment of a tree nursery in Sherichu, and a 10-hectare plantation in Daksamanag. The document details the environmental and socio-economic baseline of BC-7, which includes diverse forest types and threatened species like the Pallas’s fish eagle and smooth-coated otter. It mandates specific safeguards for waste management, occupational health and safety (OHS), and stakeholder engagement, while providing grievance redressal mechanisms through BFL, WWF, and the Green Climate Fund.