{"id":22226,"date":"2024-05-27T08:23:52","date_gmt":"2024-05-27T13:23:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=22226"},"modified":"2024-12-19T14:14:59","modified_gmt":"2024-12-19T19:14:59","slug":"a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/","title":{"rendered":"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Introduction<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018Historic\u2019 and \u2018unprecedented\u2019 are two adjectives that could easily apply to the advisory opinion<\/a> rendered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on May 21, 2024. Of course, these adjectives have also been used<\/a> to describe many other recent judgments delivered on the topic of climate change. Still, there is something in this advisory opinion that\u2014although not changing the world\u2014 could be impactful. It might, for example, pave the way for a strong advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and change the course of future global negotiations on climate change.<\/p>\n

As others in this blog symposium will provide detailed and thematic analyses, this post offers a bird\u2019s-eye view of the advisory opinion, focusing especially on the answer given by ITLOS to Question A (i.e. States\u2019 obligation to prevent, reduce, and control the pollution of the marine environment related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions), where ITLOS developed with greater detail States\u2019 obligations to reduce GHG emissions under UNCLOS, and examined the relationship between UNCLOS and the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n

Jurisdiction<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

As I explained in a previous blog post<\/a>, some have argued that ITLOS lacks advisory jurisdiction to render this opinion. However, ITLOS decided otherwise and specifically acknowledged its own competence to render the opinion. The reasons provided by the Tribunal are unconvincing and unsupported. For example, it did not explain what activities are developed by COSIS that necessitate this opinion, nor did it identify the primary rules of the law of the sea contained in the COSIS Agreement that justify its qualification as a treaty \u201crelated to the purposes of the UNCLOS\u201d. ITLOS also overlooked the fact that the requesting body posed questions related to the obligations of third parties to the COSIS Agreement. Despite all of these shortcomings in the Tribunal\u2019s analysis, it seems that States are not openly opposed to recognizing a \u201ccreeping\u201d advisory jurisdiction of the ITLOS.<\/p>\n

The interplay between <\/em><\/strong>UNCLOS<\/em><\/strong><\/a> and other rules of international law<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Adopted in 1982, UNCLOS does not refer to global warming, climate change, GHG emissions, ocean acidification, or sea level rise. However, the broad and open-ended nature of its provisions concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment can easily include all these issues\u2014starting with the definition of marine pollution in Article 1(1)(4), which ITLOS determined includes the introduction of GHG as a substance and heat as a form of energy (para 159 ff.).<\/p>\n

Articles 237 and 293 of UNCLOS expressly allow the use of other rules of international law that are not incompatible with UNCLOS to inform its interpretation. Unsurprisingly, ITLOS referenced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC<\/a>) and the Paris Agreement<\/a>, Annex VI to MARPOL<\/a>, Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention<\/a>, and the Montreal Protocol<\/a>, including the Kigali Amendment<\/a>. However, these treaties seem to have had little bearing on ITLOS\u2019 interpretation of UNCLOS. This is, again, unsurprising as cross-regime interaction is useful only to a limited extent. One reason is that the scope and goals of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement prevent them from being more specific or detailed than UNCLOS regarding marine environmental obligations. The findings of ITLOS thus resulted from an interpretation of UNCLOS alone and not from a joint reading of UNCLOS and the Paris Agreement. This does not mean that both treaties are conflicting. As Jaqueline Peel explained here<\/a>, the view of ITLOS is that obligations under both treaties are separate, but mutually reinforcing. Thus, while finding that UNCLOS and the Paris Agreement are aligned, ITLOS focused specifically on the provisions of UNCLOS to define States\u2019 obligations with respect to protection and preservation of the marine environment in the age of climate change.<\/p>\n

This point also explains one of the most interesting lines in the ITLOS advisory opinion, where the Tribunal stated that it \u201cdoes not consider that the obligation under article 194, paragraph 1, [of UNCLOS] would be satisfied simply by complying with the obligations and commitments under the Paris Agreement. [UNCLOS] and the Paris Agreement are separate agreements, with separate sets of obligations\u201d (para 223). The goal of ITLOS, then, was to list and clarify a set of obligations deriving directly from UNCLOS (namely under Articles 194, 207 and 212) irrespective of what results from the Paris Agreement. In other words, it seems that ITLOS did not consider cross-regime interaction with the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement as being particularly helpful to define States\u2019 obligations under UNCLOS.<\/p>\n

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) principle is a cornerstone of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement\u2014and also one of the most divisive topics among scholars and in international negotiations. This divisiveness results from disagreement among states regarding whether their \u2018differentiated\u2019 responsibility stems from past, current, or future GHG emissions, or from other criteria.<\/p>\n

ITLOS, however, was not tasked with addressing States\u2019 responsibility or liability (para 145 ff.), thus enabling it to apply the CBDR principle (implied in article 194 UNCLOS) (para 229) through a capacity-based lens. With respect to States\u2019 obligation to take all necessary measures to address marine pollution, ITLOS sought to delineate differentiated State obligations, considering each State\u2019s specific technological capabilities and available resources (para 205 ff.). Paradoxically, this produces a system of differentiated obligations akin to that of the Paris Agreement. Aware of this, ITLOS also pointed out that States do not draft their own obligations under UNCLOS and that these obligations evolve continuously (thus mirroring the progressive nature of States\u2019 NDCs under the Paris Agreement).<\/p>\n

In this context, ITLOS further explained that \u201cthe reference to available means and capabilities should not be used as an excuse to unduly postpone, or even exempt from, the implementation to take all necessary measures under article 194, paragraph 1\u201d (para 226). In the view of ITLOS, \u201cStates with greater means and capabilities\u201d \u201cmust do more\u201d (i.e. must take the lead) to reduce their GHG emissions (para 227).<\/p>\n

At this point, it is worth noting that one of the most difficult issues in human rights cases related to climate change is the notion of States\u2019 jurisdiction, which requires qualified control over the victim of a human rights infringement (see here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a> for more detail). In international environmental law, however, States\u2019 jurisdiction is assessed in terms of control over the source of pollution, regardless of where the effects of that pollution are felt. GHG emissions are the best example of an activity producing damages at a global scale, extending far beyond a State\u2019s borders, as global warming results from the concentration of worldwide GHG emissions. Despite the difficulties in establishing causation or attributing a State\u2019s responsibility or liability for climate change, ITLOS clarified that the obligation under article 194, paragraph 2, to avoid transboundary pollution is individual and includes the duty to prevent, reduce and control GHG emissions (para 252). To that end, ITLOS also mentioned that emissions, for this purpose, are all those resulting from State or non-State actors\u2019 activities within a State\u2019s jurisdiction or control, thus including the territory, maritime areas under a State\u2019s spatial jurisdiction, and flagged vessels or aircraft (para 247). This obligation is also one of due diligence and varies according to a State\u2019s capacities.<\/p>\n

Listing and Clarifying Obligations and the Role of Due Diligence<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The CBDR principle is intrinsically linked to the necessity for collective action, thus requiring legal obligations of cooperation and coordinated action (as extensively elaborated in the advisory opinion).<\/p>\n

ITLOS recognized climate change as a collective action problem but still emphasized that the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment in relation to climate change-related effects cannot be fulfilled merely through a State\u2019s cooperation or participation in international organizations. In fact, both individual and collective measures are necessary, but neither is inherently preferable to the other. \u201cThe \u2018appropriateness\u2019 of an individual or joint action depends on the particular circumstances in which measures are taken\u201d (para 201). As a result, ITLOS concluded that \u201cStates are required to take all necessary measures, including individual actions as appropriate\u201d (para 202).<\/p>\n

The difficult part for ITLOS (as for the ICJ or any other court or tribunal), however, is to list and flesh out a set of sufficiently characterized legal obligations\u2014having in mind that the concepts of \u201cnecessary\u201d or \u201cappropriate measures\u201d may vary according to the circumstances of each country (as noted above) and do not entail the immediate cessation of all GHG emissions (para 199). Nevertheless, ITLOS clarified that climate change mitigation measures are \u201cnecessary\u201d to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution directly under UNCLOS (para 204). Moreover, it emphasized that States do not possess complete discretion in the choice or design of measures: these measures should (but not \u201cshall\u201d) be determined objectively, informed by science, and inspired by the precautionary approach (but not \u201cprinciple\u201d), among other factors, such as States capacities (para 206 ff).<\/p>\n

Although not aiming to be exhaustive, ITLOS referred to several obligations: adopting a regulatory framework to reduce GHG emissions and effectively enforcing that framework, conducting EIAs, implementing international rules and standards at the domestic level, fulfilling the obligation of global and regional cooperation with other States, and providing scientific and technical assistance to vulnerable States. These are obligations of conduct, not of result\u2014but obligations of conduct are always results-oriented.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Furthermore, ITLOS elaborated on the doctrine of States\u2019 due diligence obligations. Due diligence obligations are \u201caccessory\u201d obligations. They serve as lenses to assess whether a State has properly fulfilled its primary obligations. In this regard, ITLOS did not innovate much compared to prior opinions (here<\/a> and here<\/a>). However, by qualifying obligations under Part XII of UNCLOS as due diligence, ITLOS affirms that it can assess how a State performs these obligations. This clarification is more important than it seems at first sight: even if the primary obligation is open-textured or challenging to define, it remains under some form of international judicial oversight. This explains why ITLOS added that \u201can obligation of due diligence can be highly demanding\u201d (para 257).<\/p>\n

The Greater Vulnerability of Some States<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

ITLOS further developed its interpretation of the CBDR principle by addressing the obligations of assistance to developing States\u2014narrowly defined as those with lesser capabilities and directly affected by the adverse effects of climate change (paras 326 and 330). The Tribunal indicates that States that are \u201cbetter placed . . . to meet their environmental responsibilities\u201d should, among other things, provide scientific, technical, educational and other necessary assistance to States \u201cwith lesser capabilities\u201d (para 326 & 327). The overall goal is to provide \u201cadequate scientific and technological knowledge to developing States\u201d (para 332). ITLOS did not explicitly refer here to \u201ctechnology transfer\u201d, but it approached the concept. It will be interesting to observe how technologically developed States (even if legally qualified as developing States) react to this finding of the ITLOS.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

While no advisory opinion can solve the climate crisis, the ITLOS decision does provide an important push for action, both globally and at the national level. It cleared the way for the ICJ\u2019s forthcoming opinion on climate change, demonstrating how a clear and solid line of arguments can be developed. Although the ICJ may decide differently due to variations in the questions posed and treaties interpreted, it is unlikely to diverge significantly from the ITLOS narrative or reject its findings on related topics.<\/p>\n

Of course, the obligations listed and fleshed out by ITLOS are still open-textured and mere obligations of conduct, not of result. But Rome wasn\u2019t built in a day. The ITLOS findings, though short, provide a solid basis for future opinions and rulings from other international courts and tribunals\u2014and will certainly stimulate scholarly discussion for years to come.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction \u2018Historic\u2019 and \u2018unprecedented\u2019 are two adjectives that could easily apply to the advisory opinion rendered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on May 21, 2024. Of course, these adjectives have also been used to describe many other recent judgments delivered on the topic of climate change. Still, there is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2327,"featured_media":17230,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69613,5671],"tags":[69255,69349,69702],"class_list":{"0":"post-22226","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-blog-series","8":"category-international","9":"tag-advisory-opinion","10":"tag-itlos","11":"tag-verfassungsblog","12":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nA Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law - Climate Law Blog<\/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:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction \u2018Historic\u2019 and \u2018unprecedented\u2019 are two adjectives that could easily apply to the advisory opinion rendered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on May 21, 2024. Of course, these adjectives have also been used to describe many other recent judgments delivered on the topic of climate change. Still, there is […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-05-27T13:23:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-19T19:14:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/04\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1315\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Armando Rocha\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Armando Rocha\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Armando Rocha\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c9d54e7a8f9fde152b6547ee280d7c4e\"},\"headline\":\"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-27T13:23:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-19T19:14:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1930,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg\",\"keywords\":[\"Advisory Opinion\",\"ITLOS\",\"Verfassungsblog\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Blog Series\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/\",\"name\":\"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-27T13:23:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-19T19:14:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/04\\\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":1315},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/27\\\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c9d54e7a8f9fde152b6547ee280d7c4e\",\"name\":\"Armando Rocha\",\"description\":\"Armando Rocha is the Sabin Center's National Rapporteur for Portugal.\",\"url\":\"#molongui-disabled-link\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law - Climate Law Blog","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:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Introduction \u2018Historic\u2019 and \u2018unprecedented\u2019 are two adjectives that could easily apply to the advisory opinion rendered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on May 21, 2024. Of course, these adjectives have also been used to describe many other recent judgments delivered on the topic of climate change. Still, there is […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2024-05-27T13:23:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-19T19:14:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1315,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/04\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Armando Rocha","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Armando Rocha","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/"},"author":{"name":"Armando Rocha","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/c9d54e7a8f9fde152b6547ee280d7c4e"},"headline":"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law","datePublished":"2024-05-27T13:23:52+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-19T19:14:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/"},"wordCount":1930,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/04\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg","keywords":["Advisory Opinion","ITLOS","Verfassungsblog"],"articleSection":["Blog Series","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/","name":"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/04\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg","datePublished":"2024-05-27T13:23:52+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-19T19:14:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/04\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/04\/csm_2022_Bockwoldt_Judges_20220322_273a5b35c3.jpeg","width":2000,"height":1315},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/05\/27\/a-small-but-important-step-a-birds-eye-view-of-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-international-law\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Small but Important Step: A Bird\u2019s-Eye View of the ITLOS\u2019 Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/c9d54e7a8f9fde152b6547ee280d7c4e","name":"Armando Rocha","description":"Armando Rocha is the Sabin Center's National Rapporteur for Portugal.","url":"#molongui-disabled-link"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22226","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2327"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22226"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22226\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24048,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22226\/revisions\/24048"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17230"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}