PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 8, 2026Netherlands International Law Review1 citationsOpen Access

Wayfinders for Climate Change Action: The ICJ, ITLOS, and IACtHR Advisory Opinions on Climate Change

DCDominic CoppensNLNicolas Lockhart

Key Points

  • This research examines the advisory opinions of three international courts on climate change obligations for States.
  • Analysis of advisory opinions from ICJ, ITLOS, and IACtHR on climate obligations.
  • Comparison of the convergence and differences in the courts' findings.
  • Examination of the legal standards proposed for mitigating climate change.
  • All courts agree on the duty to address climate change under international law.
  • ICJ emphasized the responsibility of States to regulate private emissions (specific obligations noted).
  • IACtHR defined more detailed actions regarding State responsibilities towards private actors.

Abstract

Abstract Three international courts – the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) – have recently issued landmark advisory opinions regarding States’ responsibility to address climate change. The opinions show a high level of convergence, albeit with some notable differences. In essence, they find that, under various sources, international law imposes stringent yet differentiated mitigation obligations on States to address climate change, both individually and collectively. The courts aligned on the core tenets of the due diligence standard to meet these obligations, including on the objective to limit global warming to 1.5 °C and the need to rely on science, precaution, and differentiation. While the ICJ found a duty to regulate the emissions of private actors, the IACtHR went further in defining specific actions that States must take to regulate such actors. The opinions will likely affect future domestic and international regulation and litigation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Coppens et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fd7f4fbfa21ec5bbf07cabhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-026-00291-5
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (I.C.J.)2026
  2. 2International Human Rights and the Climate Emergency: An Examination of the Climate Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights2025
  3. 3Building a <i>Corpus Iuris Climatis</i> : Making Sense of the ICJ and the IACtHR Advisory Opinions on Climate Emergency2025 · 1 citations
  4. 4Building a <i>Corpus Iuris Climatis</i> : Making Sense of the ICJ and the IACtHR Advisory Opinions on Climate Emergency2025
  5. 5Legal Imperatives to Survive the Climate Crisis: Forethoughts on the ICJ Advisory Opinion2025 · 2 citations