{"id":24548,"date":"2025-03-12T08:00:52","date_gmt":"2025-03-12T13:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=24548"},"modified":"2025-08-11T10:32:32","modified_gmt":"2025-08-11T15:32:32","slug":"the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
UN Photo\/ICJ-CIJ\/ Frank van Beek<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This blog post is Part 3 of a three-part series highlighting the main legal arguments presented during the hearings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the request for an advisory opinion <\/a>regarding the obligations of States with respect to climate change. Part 1<\/a> focused on discussions on applicable law, and the no-harm rule. Part 2<\/a> discussed climate change and human rights, the extraterritoriality of climate rights, and State obligations under climate treaties. Part 3 focuses on the legal consequences of causing significant harm and reparations.<\/p>\n

Legal Consequences and Reparations<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The second question<\/a> posed by the UNGA concerned the legal consequences for States that have caused significant harm to the climate system through their actions or omissions.<\/p>\n

Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG)<\/a> asserted that these legal consequences \u2018are governed by the general law of State responsibility.\u2019 The State emphasized that actions such as granting licenses for fossil fuel exploration and providing subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as omissions like the failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, constitute \u2018conduct\u2019 attributable to States under Article 42<\/a> of the International Law Commission\u2019s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.<\/p>\n

Vanuatu<\/a> further contended that the legal consequences of internationally wrongful conduct are well established. In particular, responsible States must (i) cease the wrongful conduct, (ii) guarantee non-repetition, and (iii) provide full reparations\u2014including compensation, restitution, and satisfaction. States such as Colombia<\/a>, Jamaica<\/a>, and Seychelles <\/a>made similar arguments. Micronesia<\/a>, Ghana<\/a>, and Saint Lucia<\/a> also emphasized that cessation and non-repetition would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cutting fossil fuel subsidies, and phasing out fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

In contrast, States such as Japan<\/a>, Germany<\/a>, and South Korea<\/a> emphasized that, while Article 8<\/a> of the Paris Agreement recognizes the importance of addressing loss and damage related to the adverse effects of climate change, this provision \u2018does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.\u2019 Others argued that applying the rules of State responsibility in the context of climate change would be particularly complex and uncertain. China <\/a>argued that \u2018loss and damage cannot be addressed through State responsibility or liability regimes\u2019 and that the UNFCCC has already established a \u2018special assistance arrangement\u2019 for this issue.<\/p>\n

Several States rejected these arguments. For instance, Comoros <\/a>and Dominica <\/a>emphasized that the obligation to provide reparations includes compensation for loss and damage. Additionally, States such as Jamaica<\/a>, Saint Lucia<\/a>, and Timor-Leste<\/a> noted that the Loss and Damage Fund<\/a> cannot replace any compensation obligations resulting from internationally wrongful acts.<\/p>\n

Several representatives also argued that applying the rules of State responsibility in the context of climate change would be complex and uncertain. For instance, New Zealand <\/a>argued that the application of these rules would involve complex \u2018unresolved legal and factual issues flowing from the nature of climate change, including those relating to causation and attribution.\u2019 Similarly, Australia <\/a>and the United States<\/a> contended that establishing reparations for climate-related harm would be particularly complex, considering it would require a clear causal link between greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting injury.<\/p>\n

States such as Barbados<\/a>, Chile<\/a>, and Seychelles <\/a>controverted these arguments. Barbados <\/a>asserted that \u2018each major emitting State individually cannot avoid its obligation to provide redress simply because all the major emitting States acted together.\u2019 According to Barbados<\/a>, \u2018States are liable for common wrongful acts\u2019 and \u2018the obligation of redress is joint and several.\u2019 Chile<\/a> further emphasized that \u2018attribution can be established on the basis of accepted scientific consensus, which, in any case, would be a matter for […] contentious proceedings.\u2019 Lastly, Chile<\/a> argued that courts would be able to consider existing scientific data regarding current and historical emissions from States and their contributions to global warming.<\/p>\n

The question of historical emissions and their implications for State responsibility was a topic of significant discussion. Countries including Bolivia<\/a>, Costa Rica<\/a>, Kenya<\/a>, Nepal<\/a>, South Africa<\/a>, and Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG)<\/a> argued that a State\u2019s international responsibility for harm to the climate system can and should be assessed based on both historical and current contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n

For instance, Chile <\/a>emphasized that science can \u2018determine, with incredible precision, current and historic emissions of individual countries and their corresponding contributions to the global mean surface temperature rise.\u2019 According to the State, this data would enable courts<\/a> to evaluate the sufficiency of climate commitments, assess the extent to which climate change contributes to specific losses and damages, and establish legal implications. In this context, Brazil<\/a> affirmed that the climate treaties reflect \u2018varying historical responsibilities\u2019 and that it is \u2018scientifically possible and feasible\u2019 to adopt a methodology to enable State Parties to the climate treaties to quantify their historical responsibility.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Germany <\/a>claimed that \u2018the legality of past emissions can only be assessed according to the States\u2019 legal obligations that were applicable at the time.\u2019 The country also noted that the IPCC published its first report in 1990 and that \u2018any State practice and opinio iuris<\/em> can conceivably only have emerged after scientific knowledge about the adverse effects of greenhouse gas emissions had become established.\u2019 Similarly, Russia<\/a> contended that any legal consequences resulting from violations of climate obligations \u2018can only be invoked from the moment the relevant treaties of the UNFCCC system entered into force for that State.\u2019<\/p>\n

Russia<\/a> also asserted that, concerning the customary obligation to prevent significant environmental harm, \u2018humanity became sufficiently aware\u2019 of the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the 1990s. Therefore, according to Russia<\/a>, \u2018a State cannot be held responsible for emissions that occurred before this period.\u2019 The Nordic countries<\/a> made a similar argument and added that historical responsibilities were explicitly rejected in the Paris Agreement negotiations.<\/p>\n

States such as Barbados<\/a>, Papua New Guinea<\/a>, Samoa<\/a>, and Vanuatu <\/a>questioned these arguments. Barbados<\/a> stated that it is \u2018factually inaccurate\u2019 to claim that States were unaware of the risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change before the first IPCC report was published in 1990. Barbados identified key dates indicating that States were aware of these risks as early as 1962. Similarly, Samoa <\/a>argued that States had knowledge about climate change \u2018well before the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement\u2019 and that rules and principles of general international law were applicable before the entry into force of these treaties. Papua New Guinea <\/a>reached a similar conclusion and emphasized that States have also been \u2018bound by the obligation to respect the right to self-determination since at least 1960.\u2019<\/p>\n

Concluding Thoughts<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The Court has begun its deliberation and is expected to issue an opinion in 2025. The ICJ\u2019s advisory opinion will likely be the third of the trio of advisory opinions<\/a> on climate change to be published. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas<\/a> (ITLOS) published its advisory opinion<\/a> in May 2024. The advisory opinion from the\u00a0 Inter-American Court of Human Rights<\/a> is expected in the next few months. While it is probable that the ICJ will not address all the topics raised in the written submissions by States, it is expected that the advisory opinion will advance significantly international climate law, hopefully in harmony rather than competition<\/a> with the other two advisory opinions.<\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This blog post is Part 3 of a three-part series highlighting the main legal arguments presented during the hearings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the request for an advisory opinion regarding the obligations of States with respect to climate change. Part 1 focused on discussions on applicable law, and the no-harm rule. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2336,"featured_media":24551,"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":[5673],"tags":[69255,68627,177],"class_list":{"0":"post-24548","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-litigation","8":"tag-advisory-opinion","9":"tag-global-climate-litigation","10":"tag-icj","11":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nThe ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3) - 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\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3) - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This blog post is Part 3 of a three-part series highlighting the main legal arguments presented during the hearings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the request for an advisory opinion regarding the obligations of States with respect to climate change. Part 1 focused on discussions on applicable law, and the no-harm rule. […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-12T13:00:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-11T15:32:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/03\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"667\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos and Maria Antonia Tigre\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@toniatigre\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos and Maria Antonia Tigre\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 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\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos and Maria Antonia Tigre\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\"},\"headline\":\"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3)\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-12T13:00:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-11T15:32:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1195,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Advisory Opinion\",\"Global Climate Litigation\",\"ICJ\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/\",\"name\":\"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3) - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-12T13:00:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-11T15:32:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":667,\"caption\":\"UN Photo\\\/ICJ-CIJ\\\/ Frank van Beek\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/03\\\/12\\\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3)\"}]},{\"@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\\\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\",\"name\":\"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/Jorge-Alejandro-Carrillo-Ban\u0303uelos-Alex-Carrillo-Banuelos-150x150.jpeg\",\"caption\":\"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos\"}},{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\",\"name\":\"Maria Antonia Tigre\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/Tigre-Foto-copy.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Maria Antonia Tigre\"}}]]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3) - 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\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3) - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"This blog post is Part 3 of a three-part series highlighting the main legal arguments presented during the hearings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the request for an advisory opinion regarding the obligations of States with respect to climate change. Part 1 focused on discussions on applicable law, and the no-harm rule. […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2025-03-12T13:00:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-11T15:32:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1000,"height":667,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/03\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos and Maria Antonia Tigre","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@toniatigre","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos and Maria Antonia Tigre","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/"},"author":{"name":"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos and Maria Antonia Tigre","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b"},"headline":"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3)","datePublished":"2025-03-12T13:00:52+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-11T15:32:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/"},"wordCount":1195,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/03\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg","keywords":["Advisory Opinion","Global Climate Litigation","ICJ"],"articleSection":["Climate Litigation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/","name":"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3) - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/03\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg","datePublished":"2025-03-12T13:00:52+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-11T15:32:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/03\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/03\/Vanuatu_climate-change-international-court-of-justice_@ICJ-CIJ-1000x667.jpg-copy.jpg","width":1000,"height":667,"caption":"UN Photo\/ICJ-CIJ\/ Frank van Beek"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/03\/12\/the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-key-takeaways-from-the-2024-hearing-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The ICJ\u2019s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Key Takeaways from the 2024 Hearing (Part 3)"}]},{"@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\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b","name":"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/03\/Jorge-Alejandro-Carrillo-Ban\u0303uelos-Alex-Carrillo-Banuelos-150x150.jpeg","caption":"Jorge Alejandro Carrillo Ba\u00f1uelos"}},{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b","name":"Maria Antonia Tigre","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/Tigre-Foto-copy.jpg","caption":"Maria Antonia Tigre"}}]]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24548","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\/2336"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24548"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24548\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24554,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24548\/revisions\/24554"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}