The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Proxy Representation of Future Generations

Peter Lawrence; Michael Reder

doi:10.1017/9781009655859.010

6 - The ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Proxy Representation of Future Generations

from Part III - Case Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2025

Peter Lawrence and

Michael Reder

Show author details

Peter Lawrence: Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Michael Reder: Affiliation:
Hochschule fur Philosophie Munchen

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Chapter 6 contains a case study in which we sketch how the normative framework set out in part A of the book, can be used as a basis for arguments that can be made in relation to the ongoing ICJ advisory opinion on climate change. It argues that the court should interpret international rules in a manner which furthers justice including intergenerational justice. This is essential for maintaining the court’s legitimacy, which must include its future legitimacy. The court should flesh out the principle of intergenerational equity by defining it in terms which require states to take climate action to ensure protection of the human rights of future generations necessary for them to lead a decent life. In addition, the normative framework is used to argue for: (i) an particular interpretation of the no harm rule to incorporate harm towards future generations and (ii) reform of the procedural rules of the ICJ so as to allow NGOs and scientists to make amicus curiae submissions (directly or implicitly) on behalf of future generations in proceedings before the court.

Keywords

ICJ advisory opinion on climate change proxy representation future generations intergenerational justice amicus briefs international courts climate change ICJ procedures procedural reform

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Representing Future Generations
Climate Change and the Global Legal Order
, pp. 145 - 177

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009655859.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) (2017).Google Scholar

Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, case no. 25501/2015, Lahore High Court, Order of 4 September 2015.Google Scholar

Atapattu, S. (2021). Global South Approaches. In Rajamani, L. & Peel, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 183–99.Google Scholar

Bodansky, D. (2017). The Role of the International Court of Justice in Addressing Climate Change: Some Preliminary Reflections. Arizona State Law Journal, 49, 689–712.Google Scholar

Bodansky, D. (2023). Advisory Opinions on Climate Change: Some Preliminary Questions. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32, 185–92.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bodansky, D. & O’Connor, S. D. (2022). An ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Ten Questions and Answers, Arlington, VA: Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions.Google Scholar

Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. & Rajamani, L. (2017). International Climate Change Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bogdandy, A. von & Venzke, I. (2014). In Whose Name? Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717461.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Brent, K. A. (2017). The Certain Activities Case: What Implications for the No-Harm Rule? Asia-Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, 20, 28–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brundtland Commission (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the Santa Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), Judgment, ICJ Reports (2015), 665 (‘Certain Activities Case’).Google Scholar

Chinkin, C. & Mackenzie, R. (2002). Intergovernmental Organisations as ‘Friends of the Court’. In Boisson de Chazoures, L., Romano, C. & Mackenzie, R., eds., International Organisations and International Dispute Settlement, Trends and Prospects. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 135–64.Google Scholar

Community Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) Judgment (merits), 31 August 2001.Google Scholar

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1989) (adopted 20 November 1989; entered into force 2 September 1990), 1577 UNTS 3.Google Scholar

Demanda Generaciones Futuras v Minambiente (Future Generations v. Ministry of the environment and others) 2018 STC4360-2018, Supreme Court of Columbia (2018). English translation available at: www.dejusticia.org/en/climate-change-and-future-generations-lawsuit-in-colombia-key-excerpts-from-the-supreme-courts-decision/.Google Scholar

Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 others, App no. 39371/20 (9 April 2024) European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).Google Scholar

Dupuy, P.-M. & Viñuales, J. E. (2018). International Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108399821CrossRef Google Scholar

Duvic-Paoli, L.-A. & Gervasi, M. (2022). Harm to the Global Commons on Trial: The Role of the Prevention Principle International Climate Adjudication. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32(2), 226–36.Google Scholar

Edenhofer, O., Wallacher, J., Lotze-Campen, H., Reder, M., Knopf, B., & Müller, J. eds. (2012). Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability: Linking Climate and Development, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-4540-7CrossRef Google Scholar

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Reports (1997), 7.Google Scholar

Gaja, G. (2020). General Principles of Law. In Peters, A. & Wolfrum, R., eds., Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: www.mpepil.com.Google Scholar

Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) no. 435 of 2012, Supreme Court of India (2014), Judgment (21 April 2014).Google Scholar

Ground International Work Trust & Vukani Environmental Justice Alliance Movement in Action v Minister of Environmental Affairs & Others, Case no. 39724/2019, High Court of South Africa, [2022] ZAGPPHC 208 (2022).Google Scholar

Held v Montana, CDV-2020-307, Montana First Judicial District Court Lewis and Clark County (2023), decision of 14 August 2023. Available at: https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2023/20230814_docket-CDV-2020-307order.pdf.Google Scholar

Humphreys, S. (2022). Against Future Generations. European Journal of International Law, 33(4), 1061–92.10.1093/ejil/chac068CrossRef Google Scholar

In re Court on Its Own Motion v State of Himachal Pradesh, National Green Tribunal Delhi (2016), Decision of 9 May 2016.Google Scholar

Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) Judgment (merits), 29 March 2006.Google Scholar

Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) Judgment (merits), 6 February 2006.Google Scholar

InfluenceMap. (2020). Australian Industry Associations and Their Carbon Policy Footprint, an Influence Map Report. Available at: https://influencemap.org/report/Australian-Industry-Groups-And-their-Carbon-Policy-Footprint-c0f1578c92f9c6782614da1b5a5ce94f.Google Scholar

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In Core Writing Team, Lee, H. and Romero, J., eds., Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 1–34, https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.00.Google Scholar

International Law Association (ILA). (2002). New Delhi Declaration of Principles of International Law Relating to Sustainable Development, Resolution 3/2002. Available at: www.ila-hq.org/en_GB/documents/conference-resolution-english-new-delhi-2002-3.Google Scholar

International Law Association (ILA). (2014). Washington Conference: Legal Principles Relating to Climate Change, Rajamani L. et al. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2461556.Google Scholar

International Law Commission (ILC). (2001). Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities. With Commentaries. In Yearbook of The International Law Commission, Vol. II Part Two, New York/Geneva: ILC.Google Scholar

Jones, M. W., Peters, G. P., & Gasser, T. et al. (2023). National Contributions to Climate Change Due to Historical Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Since 1850. Scientific Data, 10, article 155, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02041-1.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Khan, M. I. (2022). Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China by Mr Muhammad Imran Khan, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations, at the Informal Consultations on the Draft Elements Paper on the ‘Declaration for Future Generations’ (New York, 7 September 2022). Available at: www.g77.org/statement/getstatement.php?id=220907.Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2014). Justice for Future Generations: Climate Change and International Law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9780857934161CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2022). Justifying Representation of Future Generations and Nature: Contradictory or Mutually Supporting Values? Transnational Environmental Law, 11, 553–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. (2024). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Future Generations. Practice Note. Chinese Journal of Environmental Law, 8, 284–300.Google Scholar

Lawrence, P. & Köhler, L. (2018). Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework. German Yearbook of International Law, 60, 639–66.10.3790/gyil.60.1.639CrossRef Google Scholar

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, Judgment, ICJ Reports (1996) ICJ 3 (‘Legality of Nuclear Weapons’).Google Scholar

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Advisory Opinions. ICJ Reports (1996), 429 (‘Legality of Nuclear Weapons’), Separate Opinion of Justice Weeramantry.Google Scholar

Letsas, G. (2024). Did the Court in Klimaseniorinnen create an actio popularis? European Journal of International Law: Talk! (Blog, 13 May 2024). Available at: www.ejiltalk.org/did-the-court-in-klimaseniorinnen-create-an-actio-popularis/.Google Scholar

Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations (2023). Available at: www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/.Google Scholar

Mayer, B. (2023). International Advisory Proceedings on Climate Change. Michigan Journal of International Law, 44(41), 41–115.10.36642/mjil.44.1.internationalCrossRef Google Scholar

Nedeski, N., Sparks, T. & Hernández, G. (2023). The World is Burning, Urgently and Irreparably – A Plea for Interim Protection against Climatic Change at the ICJ. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 22(2), 301–37. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10095.Google Scholar

Neubauer et al., Case No. BvR 2656/18/1, BvR 78/20/1, BvR 96/20/1, BvR 288/20. Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) [Federal Constitutional Court] (2021). English translation available at: https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2021/20210324_11817_order-1.pdf.Google Scholar

Nolan, A. (2023). General Comment No. 26 on Children and the Environment – A Milestone in International Human Rights Law? European Journal of International Law: Talk! (Blog, 13 September 2023). Available at: www.ejiltalk.org/general-comment-no-26-on-children-and-the-environment-a-milestone-in-international-human-rights-law.Google Scholar

Nolan, A. (2024). Inter-generational Equity, Future Generations and Democracy in the European Court of Human Rights’ Klimaseniorinnen Decision, European Journal of International Law: Talk! (Blog, 5 April 2024). Available at: www.ejiltalk.org/inter-generational-equity-future-generations-and-democracy-in-the-european-court-of-human-rights-klimaseniorinnen-decision/.Google Scholar

North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v. Denmark; Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports (1969), 3.Google Scholar

Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France), Judgement, ICJ Reports (1974) 317.Google Scholar

Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (Request for Advisory Opinion), Order of 20 April 2023.Google Scholar

Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (2024). Our Journey. Available at: www.pisfcc.org/ourjourney.Google Scholar

Paris Agreement (2015) (adopted 12 December 2015; entered into force 4 November 2016) 3156 UNTC 79.Google Scholar

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), ICJ Reports (2010), 135 (‘Pulp Mills case’), Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade.Google Scholar

Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: Interpretive Possibilities and Underlying Politics. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–514.10.1017/S0020589316000130CrossRef Google Scholar

Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) No 31 (21 May 2024) (‘ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change’).Google Scholar

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgement of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), ICJ Reports (1995), 320 (‘Request for an Examination case’), Dissenting Opinion of Justice Weeramantry.Google Scholar

Roberts, A. & Sivakumarani, S. (2018). The Theory and Reality of The Sources of International Law. In Evans, M., ed., International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 89–118.Google Scholar

Sacchi et al Case, Decision adopted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure in respect of Communication No. 107/2019, UN Doc. CRC/C/88/D/107/2019. (UNCRC) (2021) (‘Sacchi case’).Google Scholar

Sands, P. (2016). Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future in International Law. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 19–35.10.1093/jel/eqw005CrossRef Google Scholar

Sands, P. & Mackenzie, R. (2008). International Courts and Tribunals, Amicus Curiae. Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e8.Google Scholar

Scholtz, W. (2021). Equity. In Rajamani, L. & Peel, J., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 335–50.Google Scholar

Seneviratne, K. (2023). ‘Frustrated’ USP Law Students were Catalyst for Landmark UN Climate Vote. The University of the South Pacific (USP) (Web Page, 6 April 2023). Available at: www.usp.ac.fj/wansolwaranews/news/frustrated-usp-law-students-were-catalyst-for-landmark-un-climate-vote/.Google Scholar

Shams, A. (2023). Tempering Great Expectations: The Legitimacy Constraints and the Conflict Function of International Courts in International Climate Litigation. Review of European Comparative and International Environmental Law, 32, 193–205.10.1111/reel.12510CrossRef Google Scholar

Shelton, D. (2007). The International Court of Justice and Non-Government Organisations. International Community Law Review, 9, 139–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al, NKP 2075 Supreme Court of Nepal (2018), 61(3), Decision No. 10210.Google Scholar

Stankovic, T., Hovi, J. & Skodvin, T. (2023). The Paris Agreement’s Inherent Tension between Ambition and Compliance. Humanities & Social Sciences Communication, 10, article 550. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02054-6.CrossRef Google Scholar

State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v Ganesh Wood Products and Others, Supreme Court of India (1996), A.I.R., Supreme Court 149.Google Scholar

Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 29 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945), XV UNCIO 355 (‘ICJ Statute’).Google Scholar

Stephens, T. (2020). See You in Court? A Rising Tide of International Climate Litigation. The Interpreter, Lowy Institute. Available at: www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/see-you-court-rising-tide-international-climate-litigation.Google Scholar

Streck, C. (2021). From Laggards to Leaders. In Barnes, R. & Long, R., eds., Frontiers in International Environmental Law: Oceans and Climate Challenges. Leiden: Brill, 75–105.10.1163/9789004372887_004CrossRef Google Scholar

Sudiep Shrivastava v Union of India, National Green Tribunal of India (2014), Appeal No. 73/2012 (2014).Google Scholar

Tams, C. (2005). Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511494116CrossRef Google Scholar

Tams, C. J. & Tzanakopoulos, A. (2010). Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23, 781–800.10.1017/S0922156510000361CrossRef Google Scholar

The Pact for the Future, contained in UNGA resolution A/RES/79/1 (22 September 2024).Google Scholar

Tørstad, V. & Sælen, H. (2017). Fairness in the Climate Negotiations: What Explains Variation in Parties’ Expressed Conceptions? Climate Policy, 18(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1341372.Google Scholar

Tørstad, V. H. (2020). Participation, Ambition and Compliance: Can the Paris Agreement Solve the Effectiveness Trilemma? Environmental Politics, 5, 761–80.Google Scholar

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (2023). General Comment No. 26 on Children’s Rights and the Environment, with a Special Focus on Climate Change, 22 August 2023, UN Doc. CRC/C/G C/26, 2.Google Scholar

UN Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. (2021). Report of the International Law Commission. Seventy-second session. 26 April–4 June and 5 July–6 August 2021, General Assembly Official Records Seventy-sixth Session Supplement No. 10 (A/76/10) 31.Google Scholar

UN General Assembly (UNGA). (2006). Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. UN Doc. A/RES/61/36.Google Scholar

UN General Assembly (UNGA). (2018). Report of the ILC. 70th the session, 30 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2018, Report to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/73/10.Google Scholar

UN General Assembly (UNGA). (2022). Modalities for the Summit of the Future, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/RES/76/307.Google Scholar

UN General Assembly (UNGA). (2023). Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. Resolution of the General Assembly. UN Doc. A/RES/77/276.Google Scholar

United Nations. (2024). Summit of the Future, Our Common Agenda. Available at: www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/pact-for-the-future.Google Scholar

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (adopted 9 May 1992; entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107.Google Scholar

Vanderheiden, S. (2008). Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195334609.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Verein Klimaseniorinnen v Switzerland, App no. 53600/20 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (9 April 2024).Google Scholar

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (1969) (adopted 23 May 1969; entered into force on 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.Google Scholar

Voigt, C. (2023). The Power of the Paris Agreement in International Climate Litigation. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32, 237–49.Google Scholar

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No. 6), Land Court of Queensland [2022] QLC 21.Google Scholar

Waweru v. Republic of Kenya, High Court of Kenya (2006) 1 KLR (E&L).Google Scholar

Wewerinke-Singh, M. & Hinge Salili, D. (2020). Between Negotiations and Litigation: Vanuatu’s Perspective on Loss and Damage from Climate Change. Climate Policy, 20(6), 681–92.10.1080/14693062.2019.1623166CrossRef Google Scholar

Wewerinke-Singh, M., Aguon, J. & Hunter, J. (2021). Bringing Climate Change before the International Court of Justice: Prospects for Contentious Cases and Advisory Opinions. In Alogna, I., Bakker, C., & Gauci, J.P. eds., Climate Change Litigation: Global Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 393–414.10.1163/9789004447615_018CrossRef Google Scholar

Wewerinke-Singh, M., Garg, A. & Agarwalla, S. (2023). In Defence of Future Generations: A Reply to Stephen Humphrey. European Journal of International Law, 20, 1–17.Google Scholar

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), ICJ Reports, (2014), 348, Separate Opinion of Judge Trindade.Google Scholar

Young, O. R. (2014). Does Fairness Matter in International Environmental Governance? Creating an Effective and Equitable Climate Regime. In Cherry, T. L., Hovi, J. & McEvoy, D. M., eds., Toward a New Climate Agreement: Conflict, Resolution and Governance. London: Taylor & Francis, 16–28.Google Scholar

Zahar, A. (2014). Mediated versus Cumulative Environmental Damage and the International Law Association’s Legal Principles on Climate Change. Climate Law, 4, 217–33.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.