{"id":26341,"date":"2025-08-05T07:00:03","date_gmt":"2025-08-05T12:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=26341"},"modified":"2025-08-04T13:42:30","modified_gmt":"2025-08-04T18:42:30","slug":"new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","title":{"rendered":"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In its long-awaited <\/span>advisory opinion<\/span><\/a> on climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a range of landmark findings on States\u2019 obligations to address the climate crisis and the consequences of failing to do so. The pronouncements from the world\u2019s highest court will now serve as immediate authoritative guidance to judiciaries across the globe. Accordingly, the opinion has the potential to alter the trajectory of climate change litigation, including cases concerning corporate accountability, fossil fuels permitting, and novel disputes between States (as other contributions in the Symposium will address).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One major area of climate litigation that the advisory opinion will impact is \u201c<\/span>government framework<\/span><\/a>\u201d litigation \u2013 that is, cases that challenge governments\u2019 weak mitigation ambition (so-called \u201cAmbition Gap cases\u201d) or failure to implement measures to meet their targets (so-called \u201cImplementation Gap cases\u201d) (for more, see <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>). These cases target the overall emissions reduction targets that governments adopt, and the regulatory framework to support them (or lack thereof). The advisory opinion is highly relevant to government framework cases because (1) most such cases challenge emissions reduction targets that are based on or reflected in governments\u2019 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement and (2) plaintiffs often rely, directly or indirectly, on governments\u2019 obligations under the climate change and international human rights law treaties, which form the basis of the advisory opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over the last 10 years, there have been a number of groundbreaking decisions in government framework litigation, including <\/span>Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands<\/span><\/i><\/a> (the Netherlands), <\/span>Neubauer, et al. v. Germany<\/span><\/i><\/a> (Germany), <\/span>VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others<\/span><\/i><\/a> (Belgium), <\/span>KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland <\/span><\/i><\/a>(European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)), and <\/span>Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea<\/span><\/i><\/a> (South Korea), where national and regional courts have found governments\u2019 insufficient climate policies in breach of their legal obligations. The ICJ\u2019s opinion not only builds on these precedents, it also provides greater clarity on some of the most contentious aspects of framework cases, in particular the standards against which a State\u2019s compliance with its climate obligations must be assessed. This blog offers initial reflections on how the ICJ\u2019s conclusions could shape the next generation of government framework litigation.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A Definitive Conclusion On The Paris Agreement Temperature Limit<\/b><\/h2>\n

First, and at a fundamental level, the ICJ \u201cconsider[ed] the 1.5\u00b0C threshold to be the parties\u2019 agreed primary temperature goal for limiting the global average temperature increase under the Paris Agreement\u201d (para. 224). Drawing on the best available science, as well as political agreement in Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions, the ICJ thus resolved the debate on whether 1.5\u00b0C or \u201cwell below 2 degrees\u201d of warming is the appropriate long-term temperature limit which should inform countries\u2019 mitigation efforts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This conclusion reflects the findings of national and regional courts adjudicating recent government framework cases, including <\/span>Klimaatzaak, KlimaSeniorinnen<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Do-Hyun Kim,<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Mathur, et al. v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario<\/span><\/i><\/a> (Canada), which have relied on the 1.5\u00b0C limit to assess the lawfulness of governments\u2019 climate actions. Even so, questions as to whether that was the right approach have lingered, as evidenced by the fact that several States, such as <\/span>China<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Russia<\/span><\/a>, argued in the oral hearings for this advisory opinion that the Paris Agreement temperature limit was a range between 1.5<\/span>\u00b0<\/b> and 2<\/span>\u00b0<\/b>C. With the ICJ\u2019s pronouncement, there is no debate that governments\u2019 emissions reduction plans must be in line with the collective effort to limit global temperature rise to 1.5<\/span>\u00b0<\/b>C to prevent the most severe climate harms.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Standards For Governments\u2019 Mitigation Obligations<\/b><\/h2>\n

The ICJ\u2019s findings regarding the \u201ccontent\u201d and \u201cstandards\u201d of the obligations to mitigate climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement also have significant implications for framework cases, and are likely to assist national and regional courts in adjudicating future cases, especially those focusing on the Ambition Gap.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A central point that many governments put forward in framework cases, which high-emitting States also argued in the ICJ proceedings, is that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not impose enforceable mitigation obligations. According to these States, the climate treaties are \u201centirely discretionary\u201d (para. 249), \u201cnot onerous\u201d and altogether non-binding (para. 175). The ICJ firmly rejected these arguments. On a fundamental level, it found that there are substantive mitigation obligations imposed by the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, and identified a number of standards to that effect.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In rejecting these arguments, the ICJ held that mitigation obligations under Article 4 of the UNFCCC cannot \u201cbe met merely by the adoption of any policies and the taking of corresponding measures\u201d (para. 208). Similarly, the ICJ held that preparing, communicating, and maintaining successive NDCs is not enough to comply with obligations under the Paris Agreement. Rather, the<\/span> \u201ccontent of the NDCs is equally relevant to determine compliance\u201d (para. 236). It is therefore clear that States\u2019 mitigation obligations are <\/span>substantive<\/span><\/i>, not merely procedural. With regard to NDCs, States have \u201climited\u201d discretion (para. 245). The ICJ outlined that, although the content of each State\u2019s NDC will vary, it must represent: (i) a progression over its previous one (para. 241); (ii) reflect its \u201chighest possible ambition\u201d (para. 242); (iii) be informed by global stocktake outcomes (para. 243); (iv) be sufficiently transparent (para. 244); and (v) crucially, must \u201cbe <\/span>capable <\/span><\/i>of making an adequate contribution to the achievement of the temperature goal\u201d (para. 242, emphasis added).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the \u201cadequate contribution\u201d NDCs must make to the achievement of the temperature goal, the ICJ explained that States must <\/span>collectively<\/span><\/i> ensure that, \u201cwhen taken together, [NDCs] are <\/span>capable of achieving<\/span><\/i> the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels\u201d (para. 245, emphasis added).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The practical application of these findings is significant. The ICJ found that States must determine their \u201cadequate contribution\u201d to the global effort based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). The ICJ cited the \u201ckey role\u201d (para. 226) of this principle and found that States must prepare their NDCs taking into account \u201chistorical contributions to cumulative GHG emissions, and the level of development and national circumstances of the party in question\u201d (para. 247), noting that developed country governments are to \u201ctak[e] the lead\u201d under Art 4(4) of the Paris Agreement. Significantly, the ICJ referred to the <\/span>Paris Rulebook decision<\/span><\/a> (adopted by Parties to the Paris Agreement), which, according to the ICJ, \u201crequires each party to provide information together with its NDCs on how it considers the NDCs <\/span>fair and ambitious<\/span><\/i> in light of its national circumstances\u201d (para. 248, emphasis added).<\/span><\/p>\n

What are we likely to see as a result of this? States must now ensure that their NDCs, including those to be submitted for this year\u2019s COP, (1) represent an adequate contribution to the global effort for 1.5\u00b0C, (2) collectively add up with other NDCs to achieve that aim, and (3) are fair and ambitious, in line with CBDR-RC \u2013 and thus historic responsibility. This leads to the conclusion that States must ensure their climate policies represent their <\/span>fair share<\/span><\/i> contribution to the collective climate mitigation effort to hold global temperature rise to 1.5<\/span>o<\/span>C. The importance of this conclusion lies in the fact that most States determine their reduction targets entirely divorced \u2013 instead of derived \u2013 from the required global effort. The inadequacy of this approach is central to most framework cases and is now authoritatively supported by the ICJ.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the ICJ emphasized that the standard of due diligence in this context is \u201cstringent,\u201d which means States must do their \u201cutmost\u201d to ensure they carry out their highest possible ambition (para. 246).<\/span><\/p>\n

These strong findings by the ICJ build on national and regional courts\u2019 findings over the past decade \u2013 such as those of the Dutch Supreme Court in <\/span>Urgenda<\/span><\/i><\/a> (para. 5.1.7, <\/span>Urgenda<\/span><\/i><\/a>) and the Belgian Court of Appeal in <\/span>Klimaatzaak<\/span><\/i><\/a> (para. 278, <\/span>Klimaatzaak<\/span><\/i><\/a>), which respectively required the Netherlands and Belgium to do \u201cits part\u201d to address the climate crisis. Most notably, what stands out is the symmetry of the advisory opinion with <\/span>KlimaSeniorinnen <\/span><\/i>\u2013 the 2024 ECtHR judgment that established human rights-based climate obligations, with application to 46 Council of Europe Member States, and formulated certain \u201cstandards\u201d that States\u2019 mitigation policies must meet (para. 550). Specifically, the ECtHR found that the \u201cprimary duty\u201d for States is to \u201cadopt, and to effectively apply in practice, regulations and measures <\/span>capable of mitigating<\/span><\/i> the existing and potentially irreversible, future effects of climate change\u201d (para. 545, emphasis added). For measures to be \u201ccapable,\u201d the ECtHR considered it crucial that they be based on the quantification of a national carbon budget, which must, in turn, be based on CBDR-RC (see <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>). The ECtHR further held that States\u2019 margin of appreciation in setting the ambition of their emissions reduction efforts is \u201creduced\u201d (para. 543), mirroring the stringent due diligence standard formulated by the ICJ.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The ICJ\u2019s conclusions on NDCs are particularly timely. With the third round of NDCs due in September, States will ideally adopt stronger targets to urgently close the <\/span>Emissions Gap<\/span><\/a> and comply with their legal obligations. If they fail to do so, individuals, organizations, and communities around the world are likely to draw upon the advisory opinion to attempt to hold governments accountable for insufficient climate action. At the time of writing, nearly 170 States <\/span>have yet to submit an NDC<\/span><\/a>. As it is now clear that States must develop an NDC that represents their share of the global mitigation effort for 1.5<\/span>o<\/span>C, and is fair and ambitious, in line with CBDR-RC, the coming months represent both a test and an opportunity for States to demonstrate their commitment to addressing climate change, as well as their alignment with the standards set out in this advisory opinion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Rejecting the \u201cDrop In The Ocean\u201d Argument<\/b><\/h2>\n

The ICJ also resoundingly refuted one of the most common defenses raised in government framework cases: that a State\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions, when compared to the cumulative emissions of all other States, are too small to have a measurable impact on climate change. From <\/span>Urgenda<\/span><\/i> to <\/span>Neubauer<\/span><\/i> to <\/span>Massachusetts v. EPA<\/span><\/i><\/a> (United States of America), courts have repeatedly denied this \u201cdrop in the ocean\u201d argument, yet governments continue to invoke it as a defense. Notably, and while not central to the holding of the case, the judge in <\/span>Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v. Commonwealth of Australia<\/span><\/i><\/a> recently cited it as a reason why Australia does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders affected by climate change (paras. 946-49). The ICJ, however, explained that (1) \u201cwhile climate change is caused by cumulative [greenhouse gas] emissions, it is scientifically possible to determine each State\u2019s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions\u201d (para. 429) and (2) \u201cthe rules on State responsibility are capable of addressing situations where damage is caused by multiple States engaging in wrongful conduct, and that the responsibility of a single State for damage may be invoked without invoking the responsibility of all States that may be responsible\u201d (para. 430). This effectively dismisses one of the main arguments advanced by governments and will undoubtedly strengthen the ability of plaintiffs to hold them accountable for climate inaction.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reaffirming the Role of Human Rights in Climate Litigation<\/b><\/h2>\n

Individuals, organizations, and communities bringing government framework cases often rely upon human rights law as a legal basis for challenging inadequate climate policies. The ICJ advisory opinion affirmed that governments\u2019 obligations under international human rights law apply to the adverse effects of climate change (para. 372-386), referencing expressly climate litigation in national and regional courts (para. 385). Rights-based cases are thus strengthened, both on the merits and potentially to obtain access to court and remedies. In light of the ICJ\u2019s finding that States must take their international climate change obligations into account when implementing their human rights obligations (para. 404), the ICJ\u2019s opinion adds significant weight to findings by other courts that a failure to contribute a fair share mitigation effort constitutes a human rights violation (e.g., <\/span>Urgenda, KlimaSeniorinnen<\/span><\/i>) \u2013 and paves the way for other courts to reach similar conclusions in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ICJ\u2019s conclusion that <\/span>the right to a healthy environment<\/span><\/a> is \u201cessential for the enjoyment of other human rights\u201d reaffirms the findings of national courts in framework cases of the last 10 years (para. 393). Plaintiffs in cases such as <\/span>Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan<\/span><\/i><\/a>, <\/span>Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al.<\/span><\/i><\/a> (Nepal), <\/span>Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others<\/span><\/i><\/a> (Colombia), <\/span>Held v. Montana<\/span><\/i><\/a> (United States), <\/span>Do-Hyun Kim<\/span><\/i>, and the <\/span>Hungarian Climate Case<\/span><\/i><\/a> have successfully leveraged the domestic right to a healthy environment \u2013 which is enshrined in the laws and constitutions of over 100 countries (para. 391) \u2013 to hold governments accountable for stronger climate action in a range of jurisdictions. The ICJ\u2019s willingness to interpret the right to a healthy environment as a binding norm of international law will likely bolster national and regional framework cases that rely on this right, including pending cases such as <\/span>\u00c1lvarez et al v. Peru<\/span><\/i><\/a> and <\/span>Indonesian Youths and others v. Indonesia<\/span><\/i><\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Advancing Intergenerational Equity<\/b><\/h2>\n

The advisory opinion\u2019s conclusion that the sufficiency of a State\u2019s climate commitments must be considered through an intergenerational equity lens marks a significant advancement in the normative power of this international legal principle. Over the last 10 years, a number of court decisions requiring governments to take stronger climate action have relied on intergenerational equity considerations to help determine that governments had violated their respective legal obligations, including the <\/span>Urgenda<\/span><\/i><\/a> District Court decision, <\/span>Shrestha<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Future Generations<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Neubauer<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>KlimaSeniorinnen<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Do-Hyun Kim<\/span><\/i>, and the <\/span>Hungarian Climate Case<\/span><\/i>. The ICJ\u2019s conclusion that \u201c[d]ue regard for the interests of future generations and the long-term implications of conduct are equitable considerations that need to be taken into account where States contemplate, decide on and implement policies and measures in fulfilment of their obligations under the relevant treaties and customary international law\u201d builds upon the legal reasoning in these successful cases (para. 157). Given the disproportionate impacts of climate change on younger generations, as well as the prevalence of framework cases featuring youth plaintiffs, the ICJ\u2019s findings on intergenerational equity are poised to exert a profound influence on future and pending framework cases with youth plaintiffs in countries such as <\/span>Canada<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Indonesia<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Sweden<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Taiwan<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Turkey<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Expanding the Potential for Broader Climate Remedies\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n

What remedies courts should order in framework cases has been a key question in climate litigation. Courts to date have awarded a range of remedies, including orders concerning specific emissions reductions (e.g., <\/span>Urgenda<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Klimaatzaak <\/span><\/i>(Court of Appeal)); the adoption of economy-wide legislative or regulatory frameworks (e.g., <\/span>Shrestha<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Future Generations<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>KlimaSeniorinnen<\/span><\/i>,); and implementation of existing commitments (e.g., <\/span>Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland<\/span><\/i><\/a>, <\/span>Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France<\/span><\/i><\/a>, and <\/span>DUH and BUND<\/span><\/i><\/a> (Germany)). In some instances, courts have considered declaratory judgments recognizing a breach of obligations to be sufficient (e.g., <\/span>Held<\/span><\/i>).<\/span><\/p>\n

The ICJ importantly found that a State breaching its climate obligations \u201cmay give rise to the entire panoply of legal consequences provided for under the law of State responsibility\u201d, such as obligations of cessation, non-repetition, and performance, as well as full reparation, including restitution, compensation and\/or satisfaction (para. 445). This finding offers a stronger legal foundation for national and regional courts to consider, for example, what restitution for emissions in excess of a carbon budget might entail, when compensation for climate harms should be awarded, and when to order more holistic and ambitious remedies.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion: Toward Stronger Climate Accountability<\/b><\/h2>\n

The ICJ advisory opinion articulates very clearly States\u2019 international obligations with respect to climate change. Its findings that States\u2019 mitigation efforts must reflect their highest possible ambition, be capable of achieving the 1.5<\/span>o<\/span>C goal, and be fair and ambitious, determined through the application of CBDR-RC are momentous, as are its conclusions on remedies. Government framework litigation can serve to hold States to these obligations \u2013 just as plaintiffs have done for the past 10 years. Given the multitude of lawsuits pending against governments around the world \u2013 including in <\/span>Austria<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Belgium<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Brazil<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Canada<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>the Czech Republic<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>France<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Indonesia<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Italy<\/span><\/a>, the <\/span>Netherlands<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>New Zealand<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Portugal<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Spain<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Sweden<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Taiwan<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Turkey<\/span><\/a> and more \u2013 the ICJ\u2019s conclusions could have global effects, as lawyers involved in these cases <\/span>have observed<\/span><\/a>. In addition, the ICJ\u2019s findings will undoubtedly inspire and catalyze the emergence of new claims that will shape litigation in the decade to come unless governments take meaningful climate action now. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In its long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a range of landmark findings on States\u2019 obligations to address the climate crisis and the consequences of failing to do so. The pronouncements from the world\u2019s highest court will now serve as immediate authoritative guidance to judiciaries across the globe. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2336,"featured_media":26392,"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":[69613,5673,69207],"tags":[69255,177],"class_list":{"0":"post-26341","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-blog-series","8":"category-litigation","9":"category-cross-cutting-issues","10":"tag-advisory-opinion","11":"tag-icj","12":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nNew Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - 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\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In its long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a range of landmark findings on States\u2019 obligations to address the climate crisis and the consequences of failing to do so. The pronouncements from the world\u2019s highest court will now serve as immediate authoritative guidance to judiciaries across the globe. […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-05T12:00:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Pacific-Students.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2340\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1668\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joe Udell and Floris Tan\" \/>\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=\"Joe Udell and Floris Tan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 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\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joe Udell and Floris Tan\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\"},\"headline\":\"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-05T12:00:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2718,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Pacific-Students.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Advisory Opinion\",\"ICJ\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Blog Series\",\"Climate Litigation\",\"Cross-cutting Issues\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/\",\"name\":\"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Pacific-Students.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-05T12:00:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Pacific-Students.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Pacific-Students.jpg\",\"width\":2340,\"height\":1668,\"caption\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pisfcc.org\\\/fullgallery\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/05\\\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change\"}]},{\"@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\":\"Joe Udell\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Joe-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Joe Udell\"}},{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\",\"name\":\"Floris Tan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/Floris-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Floris Tan\"}}]]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - 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\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"In its long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a range of landmark findings on States\u2019 obligations to address the climate crisis and the consequences of failing to do so. The pronouncements from the world\u2019s highest court will now serve as immediate authoritative guidance to judiciaries across the globe. […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2025-08-05T12:00:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2340,"height":1668,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Pacific-Students.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joe Udell and Floris Tan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@toniatigre","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joe Udell and Floris Tan","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/"},"author":{"name":"Joe Udell and Floris Tan","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b"},"headline":"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change","datePublished":"2025-08-05T12:00:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/"},"wordCount":2718,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Pacific-Students.jpg","keywords":["Advisory Opinion","ICJ"],"articleSection":["Blog Series","Climate Litigation","Cross-cutting Issues"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","name":"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Pacific-Students.jpg","datePublished":"2025-08-05T12:00:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Pacific-Students.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Pacific-Students.jpg","width":2340,"height":1668,"caption":"https:\/\/www.pisfcc.org\/fullgallery"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/05\/new-standards-in-government-framework-litigation-legal-implications-of-the-icj-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Standards in Government Framework Litigation: Legal Implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change"}]},{"@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":"Joe Udell","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Joe-150x150.jpg","caption":"Joe Udell"}},{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b","name":"Floris Tan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Floris-150x150.jpg","caption":"Floris Tan"}}]]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26341","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=26341"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26341\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26413,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26341\/revisions\/26413"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26392"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}