{"id":11365,"date":"2025-09-03T12:11:59","date_gmt":"2025-09-03T09:11:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/?p=11365"},"modified":"2025-09-03T12:19:43","modified_gmt":"2025-09-03T09:19:43","slug":"climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh<\/a>, Annalisa Savaresi<\/a>,\u00a0Claudia\u00a0Ituarte-Lima<\/a> and Corina Heri<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This blog post was first published on GNHRE<\/a> (30 August 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0International Court of Justice\u2019s\u00a0landmark\u00a0Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change<\/a>\u00a0delivered on 23 July 2025\u00a0has\u00a0unequivocally placed human rights at the centre of the applicable law on climate change. With it, the\u00a0International Court of Justice (ICJ)\u00a0has consolidated the growing consensus on\u00a0a\u00a0global\u00a0body of law on climate change grounded in human rights norms and obligations.\u00a0The Advisory Opinion was adopted unanimously by all ICJ judges, signalling consensus on the interpretation of international obligations concerning climate change. Although not legally binding, the Court\u2019s authoritative interpretation carries considerable weight. While cautious in parts, the Opinion nonetheless sets a clear normative direction that is likely to shape climate litigation, legislation, and diplomacy in the years ahead.\u00a0Unsurprisingly, the Advisory Opinion has prompted extensive international commentary, particularly regarding its interpretation of States\u2019 human rights obligations (see e.g.\u00a0Boyd<\/a>,\u00a0Heri<\/a>,\u00a0McVey and Savaresi<\/a>,\u00a0Perera<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Wewerinke-Singh and Vi\u00f1uales<\/a>). This post examines the human rights relied upon and developed in the\u00a0ICJ\u2019s Advisory\u00a0Opinion and\u00a0explores how its interpretation interacts with recent pronouncements of the European Court of Human Rights\u00a0(ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and relevant domestic and transnational practice.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Human rights within\u00a0and beyond\u00a0the\u00a0Advisory Opinion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Spearheaded by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change<\/a>, the Advisory Opinion campaign before the ICJ catalysed unprecedented public participation, engaging youth and children, civil society organisations, as well as nature conservation and human rights groups (see e.g. Samuels<\/a>, Peel and Neil<\/a>, and Ituarte-Lima<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ICJ\u2019s detailed analysis of States\u2019 human rights obligations proceeds along three tracks. First, the Court recognises that the effective enjoyment of human rights depends on a healthy environment and canvasses how climate change impairs specific rights (paras 372-386). Second, it turns to the implications of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (paras 387-393). Finally, the Court characterises States\u2019 climate-protection obligations as erga<\/em> omnes<\/em>, and details the legal consequences associated with these. Several of the judges\u2019 separate opinions further elaborate on these points, enriching the development of human rights law in relation to climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Advisory Opinion\u00a0unequivocally asserts that environmental protection is a precondition for the enjoyment of a\u00a0range of\u00a0human\u00a0rights<\/strong>\u2014\u00a0specifically mentioning\u00a0those to life, health, an adequate standard of living, privacy, family and home, as well as the rights of women, children and\u00a0Indigenous peoples. This position aligns the\u00a0ICJ\u00a0with the growing body of international, regional, and national practice recognising the interdependence between the enjoyment of human rights and the protection of the climate system.\u00a0Since 2009, UN human rights bodies and special mandate holders have articulated the implications of human rights obligations for climate action, including through a series of\u00a0Human Rights Council resolutions<\/a>. In 2021, these activities culminated with the appointment of\u00a0a\u00a0UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change<\/a>.\u00a0In recent years, the\u00a0rapidly\u00a0expanding body of domestic\u00a0jurisprudence\u00a0recognising\u00a0the links between human rights and climate law\u00a0obligations\u2014following\u00a0the landmark Leghari v Pakistan<\/em>\u00a0judgement<\/a>\u2014was\u00a0corroborated\u00a0at the regional level\u00a0by\u00a0the 2024 judgment by the\u00a0ECtHR\u00a0in KlimaSeniorinnen et al v Switzerland<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and the 2025\u00a0Advisory Opinion<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0IACtHR\u00a0on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights. The\u00a0ICJ\u2019s\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0explicitly references some of these milestones, and several separate opinions by the judges further elaborate on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0ICJ\u2019s\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0also\u00a0specifically\u00a0considers\u00a0the role of the\u00a0right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment<\/strong> vis-\u00e0-vis climate change. As\u00a0Boyd<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Heri<\/a> have\u00a0also\u00a0noted, this is not\u00a0a\u00a0mere\u00a0rhetorical exercise.\u00a0Rather,\u00a0the\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0crystallizes the\u00a0position of this\u00a0right within the applicable law, making it an integral part of State obligations regarding climate change.\u00a0The Court stops short of explicitly recognising the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a rule of customary international law, or of defining its normative content. This caution likely reflects three factors: the lack of recognition by powerful States, differing interpretations across legal systems, and a deliberate choice to leave space for human rights bodies to further develop the right in practice. Nonetheless, some judges, in separate opinions, went further, drawing on domestic constitutions, regional jurisprudence, and United Nations practice\u00a0and concluding\u00a0that the right either already constitutes customary international law or is rapidly crystallizing as such.\u00a0Judge Bhandari<\/a>,\u00a0Judge\u00a0Aurescu<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Judge Tladi<\/a>\u00a0emphasise its customary status, with Judge\u00a0Aurescu\u2014who raised a question on this\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0ICJ\u00a0hearings\u2014explicitly grounding\u00a0the right\u00a0in widespread domestic recognition, regional jurisprudence, and UN resolutions.\u00a0Judge Charlesworth<\/a>\u00a0explores the content of the right, emphasizing that its\u00a0procedural and substantive features and special obligations towards those in vulnerable situations.\u00a0Judge\u00a0Sebutinde<\/a>\u00a0further underscores that the law must consider the interests of \u201cpresent and future generations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the ICJ did not explicitly delineate the substantive elements of the right to a healthy environment, its references to climate, food, and water\u2014anchored in IPCC evidence\u2014clarify how these dimensions are interconnected and mutually reinforcing (para. 384). The Advisory Opinion highlights the composite character of the right and its dependence on ecological integrity. While the Court did not directly address the environmental democracy dimensions of the right\u2014namely access to information, public participation, and access to justice\u2014its recognition of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a key instrument for climate-related obligations implicitly underscores the centrality of procedural rights, such as freedom of assembly and expression, for protecting individuals and groups from climate harms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0integrates national and regional jurisprudence, the work by international bodies, and IPCC scientific assessments to clarify the heightened obligations of States toward vulnerable populations. The Court uses IPCC findings to articulate the causal links between climate change and the impairment of human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It particularly highlights how historically marginalized groups\u2014especially women and Indigenous peoples\u2014are disproportionately affected (paras. 77, 384).\u00a0Judge Charlesworth<\/a>\u00a0provides\u00a0a more developed intersectional analysis of\u00a0climate impacts, concluding that States have \u201ca particular obligation to protect the human rights of vulnerable groups [which] requires close attention to the potentially discriminatory effects of measures taken to respond to climate change\u201d\u00a0(para. 29).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally,\u00a0the\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0characterises\u00a0States\u2019\u00a0climate-protection obligations\u2014including\u00a0the\u00a0prevention duty under the\u00a0no harm rule\u2014as erga\u00a0omnes<\/em><\/strong>,\u00a0thus\u00a0linking\u00a0the human rights\u00a0implications\u00a0of climate harm to obligations owed to the international community as a whole. This\u00a0finding\u2014\u00a0grounded on\u00a0human rights as part of the\u00a0legal framework\u00a0applicable to climate change\u00a0and erga\u00a0omnes<\/em>\u00a0obligations as their corollary\u2014\u00a0powerfully\u00a0confirms\u00a0the\u00a0crucial role\u00a0of\u00a0human rights in climate governance<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0is especially consequential. It connects shared human rights interests in a stable climate to obligations\u00a0enforceable<\/a>\u00a0by all States,\u00a0and\u00a0not only\u00a0by\u00a0those specially injured. This\u00a0interpretation\u00a0potentially\u00a0unlocks forms of invocation of responsibility that do not depend on bilateral injury and that reflect the distributive and intergenerational nature of climate harm\u00a0(see further\u00a0Pezzano<\/a>).\u00a0It also aligns the Court\u2019s reasoning with domestic court decisions\u2014such as Urgenda\u00a0v the State of the Netherlands<\/em><\/a>\u00a0\u2014which held\u00a0that difficulties of\u00a0attribution<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0causation<\/a>\u00a0do not\u00a0exempt\u00a0wrongful conduct from legal consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Future generations: from equity infra legem<\/em> to rightsholders\u00a0<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0weaves intergenerational equity into\u00a0the\u00a0legal\u00a0principles\u00a0applicable to climate change\u00a0(paras. 155-157). It treats intergenerational equity as a legal consideration that guides the interpretation and application of obligations\u2014both treaty-based and customary\u2014rather than as a\u00a0self-standing source\u00a0of obligation.\u00a0In our reading, this\u00a0is a choice of legal technique rather than a denial of normative salience. By placing future generations within the\u00a0infra\u00a0legem<\/em>\u00a0toolbox, the Court ensures that obligations are construed and applied in ways that avoid shifting intolerable burdens to those yet to be born.\u00a0As\u00a0Nolan\u00a0<\/a>also\u00a0notes,\u00a0however,\u00a0regional human\u00a0rights courts have moved further toward recognising future generations as rightsholders and toward using general principles to operationalise those rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its 2025 Advisory Opinion<\/a>, the IACtHR<\/strong> stresses \u201clife in dignity,\u201d warns against \u201cecological barbarism,\u201d and reads intergenerational considerations not only as interpretive constraints but as organising reasons for action. This is a distinct jurisprudential move, one that foregrounds principles to concretise obligations owed to those not yet born. In doing so, the IACtHR draws on general principles\u2014precaution, prevention, intergenerational equity\u2014and softlaw instruments \u2014such as the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations<\/a> \u2014 to frame States\u2019 duties toward \u201cpresent and future generations of humanity\u201d in climate governance. The Maastricht Principles articulate present generations\u2019 duties to avoid foreseeable harm to future generations, to cooperate internationally, and to act as stewards of natural systems. Their influence is evident in the IACtHR\u2019s Advisory Opinion and in domestic practice, and it also resonates with the ICJ\u2019s unanimous decision to treat intergenerational equity as an interpretive lens shaping the content of due diligence over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By contrast,\u00a0in\u00a0KlimaSeniorinnen et al v Switzerland<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0the\u00a0ECtHR<\/strong>\u00a0based its reasoning on Article 8 of the European\u00a0Convention on Human Rights, interpreted in conjunction with\u00a0State obligations under\u00a0the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The Court\u00a0conceptually\u00a0recognised the \u201cintergenerational burdensharing\u201d dimension of mitigation, but the doctrinal\u00a0foundation rested on\u00a0Article 8\u2019s positive obligations,\u00a0informed\u00a0by climate science and international climate law indicators of adequacy. On standing, the\u00a0ECtHR broke with its established doctrine by accepting\u00a0the association\u2019s\u00a0representative\u00a0claim precisely because climate change presents diffuse, systemic and intergenerational risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite their differing approaches, all three\u00a0courts clearly\u00a0emphasised\u00a0the intergenerational\u00a0dimension,\u00a0paving the way for the\u00a0crucial\u00a0conceptual shift needed to recognize future generations as right-holders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shift is already manifest in the swelling body of domestic practice, translating<\/a> intergenerational equity reasoning into enforceable rights. The Philippine Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 1993 Oposa<\/em><\/a> ruling treated intergenerational responsibility as a justiciable basis for standing and for constraints on resource depletion. In 2018, the High Court of Bogot\u00e1<\/a> acknowledged the rights of future generations and of the Amazon, ordering the government to adopt a plan to halt deforestation. In 2021,the Neubauer<\/em><\/a> judgment by the German Federal Constitutional Court found that excessive delays in emission reductions violate constitutional rights by disproportionately placing mitigation burdens onto younger and future generations. Together, these lines of authority mark a shift from equity infra <\/em>legem<\/em> to concrete obligations and remedies, which shaped the ICJ\u2019s interpretation of the normative landscape and are poised to guide other courts in future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trend is visible across jurisdictions. The\u00a0Grantham Research Institute\u2019s 2025 snapshot<\/a>\u00a0identifies a further uptick in\u00a0cases engaging human rights arguments<\/a>,\u00a0youth claimants and intergenerational reasoning<\/a>, with courts increasingly scrutinising the adequacy of national pathways against science-based indicators and international commitments. This picture reinforces\u00a0the role of\u00a0human rights\u00a0as\u00a0a vehicle for translating climate objectives into State duties, including duties owed to those not yet born.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Systemic integration,\u00a0duty of cooperation\u00a0and good faith<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0ICJ\u2019s\u00a0Opinion\u00a0is a\u00a0sustained exercise<\/a>\u00a0in systemic integration.\u00a0Throughout its opinion, the Court reads treaty obligations in light of one another and of general international law, including human rights\u2014doing precisely what Article 31(3)(c) of the\u00a0Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties<\/a> prescribes: interpreting treaties\u00a0\u201cin the light of any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties\u201d.\u00a0Thus,\u00a0the\u00a0climate treaties\u2019\u00a0provisions\u00a0are construed in a\u00a0manner\u00a0that\u00a0factors in\u00a0the human\u00a0rights\u00a0implications\u00a0of climate harm and the collective temperature goals\u00a0implications for\u00a0State\u00a0obligations concerning climate change\u00a0mitigation and finance.\u00a0The\u00a0ICJ\u00a0aligns with the\u00a0ECtHR\u2019<\/a>s\u00a0\u2014and, before it, the\u00a0Dutch courts<\/a>\u2019\u2014\u201cintegrated reading\u201d of the European\u00a0Convention on\u00a0Human\u00a0Rights alongside the UN\u00a0Framework\u00a0Convention on\u00a0Climate\u00a0Change and the Paris Agreement, confirming that this approach should be regarded as the general interpretive ethic for this complex legal field.\u00a0Rejecting the view that climate change treaties alone constitute the relevant law, the ICJ\u00a0interprets them in conjunction with\u00a0other environmental agreements of particular human rights significance\u2014namely the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Desertification Convention\u2014framing these instruments as part of the directly applicable legal framework (paras. 113\u2013171, 172).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0Advisory Opinion\u00a0also\u00a0affirms that\u00a0the duty to cooperate has customary force and is governed by good faith. In doing so,\u00a0the\u00a0ICJ\u00a0connected\u00a0good faith cooperation to human rights in two ways. First, by recognising that the protection of the climate system is an\u00a0erga\u00a0omnes<\/em>\u00a0concern, it aligns the cooperative duties that make mitigation possible with interests shared by all peoples, including future generations. Second, by affirming that environmental protection is a precondition for human\u00a0rights enjoyment and by engaging the\u00a0right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, it treats human rights norms as part of the matrix that informs what due diligence and cooperation require\u00a0in\u00a0concreto<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Opinion\u2019s Contribution and Future Directions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The ICJ\u2019s views on States\u2019 human rights obligations provide a clear normative direction for future climate law-making and enforcement, likely to shape future climate litigation, legislation, and diplomacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On mitigation, the ICJ clarifies that equity and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities shape States\u2019 obligations broadly, while endorsing the ECtHR\u2019s approach by translating intergenerational concerns into concrete governance requirements on targets, pathways, and credible implementation\u2014likely influencing proportionality and adequacy reviews in other jurisdictions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On cooperation, the ICJ aligned with the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change<\/a> by emphasizing good faith and due diligence, and supporting closer scrutiny of whether finance, technology, and capacity-building measures are commensurate with the Paris Agreement\u2019s temperature goals and evolving capabilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On extraterritorial effects, the ICJ indicates that human rights obligations related to climate change must be interpreted instrument by instrument, yet cannot be limited to a narrow territorial perspective when the harm is inherently transboundary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On participation and remedies, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child\u2019s General Comment No. 26<\/a> and the UN General Assembly\u2019s recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment<\/a> have become key interpretive anchors for youth and community claimants seeking forward-looking relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As noted above, the Court left open the question of whether the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment has attained customary status. However, the Court\u2019s systematic engagement\u2014together with its treatment of erga<\/em> omnes <\/em>obligations\u2014signals a readiness to treat human rights norms as interpretive constraints on both treaty and customary law in the climate context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the Opinion makes crystal-clear that human rights norms\u2014both treaty-based and customary\u2014are essential reference points for defining States\u2019 climate obligations, including those owed to future generations. This marks a significant advance, establishing a human rights\u2013based approach to climate change that recognises time as a distinct and relevant dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With its Advisory Opinion, the ICJ has not drafted a human rights code for the climate emergency. Rather, it has taken a subtler\u2014and potentially more influential\u2014approach: mainstreaming human rights and the interests of future generations into the interpretation of climate treaties and customary law, reinforcing\u00a0the duties of\u00a0cooperation and due diligence through human rights standards, and reframing climate protection duties as\u00a0erga\u00a0omnes<\/em> obligations.\u00a0Read alongside the other landmark climate rulings\u00a0cited\u00a0above, the\u00a0ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion\u00a0consolidates a transnational body of emerging global law on climate change grounded in human rights norms and obligations. The task for lawmakers, implementers, and practitioners is to use this evolving corpus of law to craft rules that prevent further harm to present and future generations\u2014and to\u00a0redress harms already suffered.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Annalisa Savaresi,\u00a0Claudia\u00a0Ituarte-Lima and Corina Heri This blog post was first published on GNHRE (30 August 2025). The\u00a0International Court of Justice\u2019s\u00a0landmark\u00a0Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change\u00a0delivered on 23 July 2025\u00a0has\u00a0unequivocally placed human rights at the centre of the applicable law on climate change. With it, the\u00a0International Court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1295,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1319,45,527,657,770,1113,578,1320],"tags":[1322,20,663,718,1321],"class_list":["post-11365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-climate-change","category-climate-law","category-climate-litigation","category-climate-mitigation","category-climate-policy","category-climate-science","category-human-rights","category-international-court-of-justice","tag-advisory-opinion","tag-climate-change-law","tag-climate-justice","tag-human-rights-and-climate-change","tag-international-court-of-justice"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nClimate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion - The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion - The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Annalisa Savaresi,\u00a0Claudia\u00a0Ituarte-Lima and Corina Heri This blog post was first published on GNHRE (30 August 2025). The\u00a0International Court of Justice\u2019s\u00a0landmark\u00a0Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change\u00a0delivered on 23 July 2025\u00a0has\u00a0unequivocally placed human rights at the centre of the applicable law on climate change. With it, the\u00a0International Court […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-03T09:11:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-03T09:19:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"980\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"631\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"veerakan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"veerakan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"veerakan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/0a1bceb47a3978a3ccd0ff68702c5fc3\"},\"headline\":\"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-03T09:11:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-03T09:19:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\"},\"wordCount\":2727,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Advisory opinion\",\"climate change law\",\"climate justice\",\"human rights and climate change\",\"International Court of Justice\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Change\",\"Climate Law\",\"Climate Litigation\",\"Climate Mitigation\",\"Climate Policy\",\"Climate Science\",\"Human Rights\",\"International Court of Justice\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion - The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-03T09:11:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-03T09:19:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/0a1bceb47a3978a3ccd0ff68702c5fc3\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg\",\"width\":980,\"height\":631},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/\",\"name\":\"The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/0a1bceb47a3978a3ccd0ff68702c5fc3\",\"name\":\"veerakan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f2350d6d8499c63b551629b6bda46641299de3e7ccad3320e11ef624cb1033fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f2350d6d8499c63b551629b6bda46641299de3e7ccad3320e11ef624cb1033fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"veerakan\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/author\/veerakan\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion - The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion - The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law","og_description":"By Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Annalisa Savaresi,\u00a0Claudia\u00a0Ituarte-Lima and Corina Heri This blog post was first published on GNHRE (30 August 2025). The\u00a0International Court of Justice\u2019s\u00a0landmark\u00a0Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change\u00a0delivered on 23 July 2025\u00a0has\u00a0unequivocally placed human rights at the centre of the applicable law on climate change. With it, the\u00a0International Court […]","og_url":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/","og_site_name":"The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law","article_published_time":"2025-09-03T09:11:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-03T09:19:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":980,"height":631,"url":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"veerakan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"veerakan","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/"},"author":{"name":"veerakan","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/0a1bceb47a3978a3ccd0ff68702c5fc3"},"headline":"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion","datePublished":"2025-09-03T09:11:59+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-03T09:19:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/"},"wordCount":2727,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg","keywords":["Advisory opinion","climate change law","climate justice","human rights and climate change","International Court of Justice"],"articleSection":["Climate Change","Climate Law","Climate Litigation","Climate Mitigation","Climate Policy","Climate Science","Human Rights","International Court of Justice"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/","url":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/","name":"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion - The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg","datePublished":"2025-09-03T09:11:59+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-03T09:19:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/0a1bceb47a3978a3ccd0ff68702c5fc3"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/522\/homebanner.jpg","width":980,"height":631},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/climate-justice-at-the-icj-human-rights-implications-of-the-advisory-opinion\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Climate Justice at the ICJ: Human Rights Implications of the Advisory Opinion"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#website","url":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/","name":"The Center for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/0a1bceb47a3978a3ccd0ff68702c5fc3","name":"veerakan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f2350d6d8499c63b551629b6bda46641299de3e7ccad3320e11ef624cb1033fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f2350d6d8499c63b551629b6bda46641299de3e7ccad3320e11ef624cb1033fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"veerakan"},"url":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/author\/veerakan\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11365","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1295"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11365"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11365\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11368,"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11365\/revisions\/11368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.uef.fi\/cceel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}