Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that ocean protection is impossible without confronting the expansion of offshore oil and gas, which it identifies as the primary driver of the climate crisis. The organization calls on governments at the 11th Our Ocean Conference in Kenya to halt new offshore licensing, end public subsidies for expansion, and reject speculative marine geoengineering technologies that risk irreversible ecosystem damage. It further argues that states have binding legal duties under international law to prevent climate harm and protect the marine environment, which necessitates a coordinated phaseout of fossil fuel demand and supply.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that the UNFCCC is currently hindered by a consensus model that allows a small number of countries to obstruct progress. Citing the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta and the UN General Assembly's resolution on the ICJ climate Advisory Opinion, the authors argue that climate action is moving beyond the UNFCCC and that the body must evolve to incorporate majority voting, address corporate capture, and operationalize legal obligations to prevent climate harm.

The document examines how the reliance on consensus in the UNFCCC has led to a 'race to the bottom,' resulting in watered-down agreements on fossil fuels, science-based targets, and loss and damage. It proposes two procedural pathways for reform: adopting the long-delayed draft Rules of Procedure or amending the Convention itself. To support this, the author provides a comparative analysis of other UN institutions and multilateral environmental agreements—such as the Montreal Protocol and the Green Climate Fund—that successfully utilize voting to break deadlocks and advance substantive goals.

The report finds that between 2019 and 2025, 240 global banks provided US$590.8 billion to the top fifteen petrochemical companies, with a high concentration of funding from US, Japanese, Chinese, German, and UK institutions. Institutional investors held US$146.6 billion in exposure to these companies as of September 2025, dominated by US-based asset managers like Vanguard and BlackRock. The document argues that this financing persists despite structural risks such as overcapacity and collapsing profit margins, and often contradicts the public climate commitments of the financial institutions involved.

The document analyzes how the plastics industry employs nine recurring disinformation frames—ranging from denialism and victim blaming to the promotion of pseudo-solutions like chemical recycling—to protect its legitimacy and deflect responsibility for plastic pollution. It argues that these narratives are amplified by digital algorithms and AI, and recommends upstream policy interventions, including production caps and legal accountability for producers, to address the root causes of the plastics crisis.

The authors argue that the upcoming UN General Assembly resolution to operationalize the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on climate change is a critical test of global climate leadership. They assert that the resolution reflects existing legal obligations to prevent climate harm, provide reparations, and ensure a just transition from fossil fuels. While noting resistance from major emitters and oil producers who seek to weaken the text, the authors maintain that the resolution complements existing UNFCCC processes by closing an 'accountability gap' that the treaty regime has failed to address.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) advocates for a managed, financed, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout during the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia. CIEL proposes a binding Fossil Fuel Treaty to fill governance gaps and argues that states have a legal obligation, supported by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to phase out fossil fuels. Key priorities include dismantling Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, ending offshore oil and gas licensing, halting petrochemical expansion, and rejecting carbon capture and geoengineering. The document emphasizes that the transition must be funded by the largest cumulative polluters and grounded in human rights and Indigenous leadership.

The document examines the impact of offshore oil and gas activities in the Wider Caribbean, highlighting the ecological threats to coral reefs and mangroves, the economic vulnerability of fossil-fuel-dependent states, and the legal obligations of states to prevent marine pollution and climate harm.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that US and Israeli military strikes on Iran are illegal acts of aggression that destabilize the region and cause destruction to both human life and the environment. CIEL argues that these attacks cannot be justified as efforts to promote human rights or democracy, noting that such military actions have already resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. The organization calls on the international community, including European leaders, to reject the normalization of force and instead prioritize diplomacy, multilateralism, and nuclear restraint to protect the environment and the rule of law.

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.

The report examines how the petrochemical industry serves as a 'Plan B' for fossil fuel companies, creating physical and economic lock-in that threatens global decarbonization efforts. It highlights the rapid growth of plastics and ammonia production, the environmental and health costs of these chemicals, and the use of 'transition narratives' to justify new fossil infrastructure. The authors propose five strategic levers—financial strain, market uncertainty, greenwashing, human health impacts, and just transition frameworks—to curb this expansion and enable a full fossil fuel phaseout.

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 analyzes the ICJ's advisory opinion to argue that States must prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source over speculative technologies like geoengineering and carbon offsets. It outlines how the ICJ's standards of 'stringent due diligence' and the 'precautionary principle' can be used in litigation to hold States and corporations accountable for ineffective climate strategies that delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document analyzes the implications of the ICJ's advisory opinion on States' obligations to prevent environmental harm, specifically focusing on the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the regulation of private finance. It argues that States may commit internationally wrongful acts by continuing to fund fossil fuel production or failing to regulate private financiers. Additionally, it outlines binding obligations for developed States to provide financial assistance to developing countries for climate adaptation and mitigation under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The briefing concludes by categorizing various types of climate litigation—including cases against public agencies, central banks, and private financial institutions—where these legal findings are applicable.

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 distills the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 2025 advisory opinion to assist practitioners in seeking climate-related remedies. It establishes that State responsibility for climate harm is governed by customary international law and can trigger a full range of legal consequences, including cessation, non-repetition, and reparation (restitution, compensation, and satisfaction). The note clarifies that a plurality of contributors does not exempt individual States from responsibility and that scientific evidence allows for the determination of each State's total contribution to global emissions. It further outlines how these findings apply to human rights cases, corporate accountability litigation, and inter-State proceedings.

The document distills key findings from the ICJ's July 2025 advisory opinion, establishing the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a binding norm of international law and a precondition for other human rights. It outlines State obligations to protect the climate system, the material scope of wrongful acts—including omissions related to fossil fuel subsidies and licenses—and the legal consequences of breaches, such as full reparation. The briefing also categorizes types of climate litigation, such as cases treating the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right or linking it to the rights of nature, to illustrate how the ICJ's reasoning can be applied in domestic and international courts.