Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that the UNFCCC requires urgent reform to overcome the limitations of its consensus-based decision-making process, which allows a small number of countries to obstruct progress on fossil fuel phase-outs and climate finance.

A statement by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ) urging UN member states to support a resolution on May 20, 2026, to operationalize the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on states' climate obligations.

This briefing discusses the implications of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change for Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), emphasizing that states must now implement climate-related provisions across different treaties in a systemic and integrated manner to ensure compliance with international law.

This policy brief examines the implications of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change for multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), emphasizing that states must now implement climate provisions in an integrated and systemic manner to ensure compliance with international law.

This briefing examines the impact of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change on international investment law, arguing that climate action is now a binding legal obligation that should inform the interpretation of investment treaties and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims.

This briefing by the International Institute for Sustainable Development examines the implications of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change, specifically regarding climate adaptation. It asserts that adaptation is a binding legal obligation under international law and provides recommendations for states to demonstrate due diligence in preventing and remedying foreseeable climate harms.

This briefing by the International Institute for Sustainable Development examines the implications of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change, specifically regarding the requirement to include downstream emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).

This briefing from 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 for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). It specifically focuses on the requirement for states to include end-use emissions from fossil fuels in their assessments to comply with international law and reduce legal risk.

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.

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 transforms climate change adaptation from a voluntary domestic policy choice into a legally binding international obligation.

This IISD briefing analyzes a July 2025 ICJ advisory opinion which establishes that climate adaptation is a binding legal obligation for states under international law, rather than a voluntary national choice. It details the procedural and substantive requirements for states, the application of a 'due diligence' standard for compliance, the binding obligation of developed nations to provide adaptation finance to developing countries, and the critical link between adaptation and the protection of fundamental human rights.

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 guide provides a series of structured 'Litigation Notes' designed to help legal practitioners integrate the findings of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, Advisory Opinion (AO) on States' obligations regarding climate change into domestic, regional, and international court cases. The document breaks down the ICJ AO by key themes—including government framework cases, adaptation, remedies and reparations, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate financing, speculative interventions, and regulatory rollbacks—providing specific excerpts from the opinion and illustrating their application through existing and potential litigation categories.

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 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.

A guide published by CIEL and other organizations detailing how the International Court of Justice's July 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change obligations can be used by negotiators at COP30 to increase climate ambition and accountability.

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.

This policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the proposed international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution (the Plastics Treaty) must be grounded in a human rights-based approach. It asserts that plastic pollution violates multiple internationally recognized human rights and that the treaty should operationalize both substantive rights, such as the right to a healthy environment, and procedural rights, such as access to justice and public participation, to ensure equity and accountability.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes historical negotiation timelines of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to provide pathways for the development of a future international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. It argues that the current ambition to complete the plastics treaty by the end of 2024 is tight and suggests that previous treaties, such as the Rotterdam, Minamata, and BBNJ agreements, demonstrate that negotiations can legally and practically extend beyond initial deadlines without requiring new mandates from governing bodies.

This fact sheet by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) outlines the legal limitations of Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions, contrasting them with treaties, protocols, and amendments. Using examples from the Basel and Kyoto frameworks, it warns that relying on future COP decisions to establish critical obligations for a future plastics treaty may lead to significant delays or failure due to ratification requirements and consensus-based voting.