Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the 11th Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya, must address the root cause of ocean degradation by confronting the expansion of offshore oil and gas and rejecting speculative marine geoengineering technologies.

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.

CIEL's statement on the 2026 Santa Marta Conference calls for a binding international Fossil Fuel Treaty to manage the phaseout of oil, gas, and coal. Grounding its arguments in ICJ and ITLOS rulings, CIEL urges the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, the dismantling of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, and the cessation of offshore drilling and petrochemical expansion. The organization emphasizes that the transition must be funded by major historical polluters and centered on human rights and Indigenous leadership.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law examines the environmental, climatic, and economic risks associated with offshore oil and gas expansion in the Wider Caribbean, arguing that such activities threaten sustainable ocean-based economies and violate international legal obligations to prevent climate harm.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) issued a statement condemning military attacks on Iran by the US and Israel, characterizing them as violations of international law that threaten human life, the environment, and global security.

This briefing paper argues that the proposed United Nations Legally Binding Instrument (LBI) to regulate transnational corporations is a critical structural lever for achieving environmental justice. It contends that existing voluntary frameworks are inadequate to stop corporate-driven ecological destruction and that the LBI can transform the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (RtHE) into enforceable obligations, ensuring corporate liability and access to remedy across transnational value chains.

This briefing paper argues for the necessity of a legally binding United Nations instrument to regulate transnational corporations and other businesses as a structural lever for environmental justice. It contends that current voluntary frameworks are insufficient to ensure corporate accountability for ecological destruction and human rights violations, particularly in the Global South.

This guide, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in February 2026, provides structured 'Litigation Notes' to help lawyers integrate the findings of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, Advisory Opinion (AO) on State obligations regarding climate change into current and future legal cases. The document breaks down the ICJ's conclusions into thematic areas, including government framework litigation, adaptation, remedies and reparations, the right to a healthy environment, corporate conduct, climate finance, speculative interventions, and regulatory backsliding. It aims to translate the ICJ's normative clarity into practical tools for promoting climate justice across national, regional, and international courts.

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 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 litigation guide analyzes the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion to provide a legal framework for challenging 'regulatory rollbacks'—the weakening of climate and environmental protections. It highlights the ICJ's 'stringent due diligence' standard, the duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system, and the requirement for progressive NDCs aligned with a 1.5°C limit. The guide argues that rollbacks in emission standards, forest protections, and EIA procedures may constitute internationally wrongful acts, citing specific recent examples from India, Germany, Belgium, France, and the United States.

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 litigation note, published by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in February 2026, provides a guide for legal practitioners to integrate the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 23, 2025, advisory opinion (AO) on climate change into government framework litigation. It specifically focuses on 'Ambition Gap' and 'Implementation Gap' cases, detailing how the ICJ's findings on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), due diligence, and human rights can be used to challenge insufficient government climate policies.

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 previews the first Plenary session of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP), scheduled for February 2-6, 2026, in Geneva. The document outlines the Panel's purpose as a non-binding science-policy body designed to provide scientific assessments to inform policymakers, while highlighting critical unresolved governance issues regarding rules of procedure, conflict of interest policies, and the inclusion of gender and Indigenous Peoples' rights.