{"id":26578,"date":"2025-08-20T14:00:47","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T19:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=26578"},"modified":"2025-08-20T14:01:56","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T19:01:56","slug":"is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Montevideo Sinking? “Disappearing” States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ) recent <\/span>advisory opinion on climate change<\/span><\/a> is a landmark in the development of international law. In this post, we focus on a short section of the opinion that may signal a fundamental shift in how international law conceives of statehood. We aim to decipher the ICJ’s \u201cDelphic pronouncement\u201d (<\/span>Judge Tomka<\/span><\/a>) on sea-level rise and its implications for the statehood of low-lying island States.<\/span><\/p>\n

In<\/span> classical international law<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> statehood<\/span><\/a> (the most fundamental type of international legal personality) is defined by three cumulative criteria: territory, population, and government (see <\/span>Shaw<\/span><\/a>, p. 182). These criteria reflect customary international law and, along with a fourth criterion on the capacity to conduct foreign relations, were codified in the<\/span> Montevideo Convention<\/span><\/a> on the Rights and Duties of States (the \u201cMontevideo criteria\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n

What could not have been foreseen during the initial development of these criteria was the complete submersion of a State\u2019s (land) territory beneath the sea. But that is now a very real possibility.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For low-lying island States in particular, sea-level rise due to climate change poses an existential threat. The United Nations Development Programme<\/span> predicts<\/span><\/a> that 95% of Tuvalu\u2019s land will be flooded by 2100.<\/span> Tuvalu<\/span><\/a> and<\/span> Vanuatu<\/span><\/a> have identified sea-level rise as their greatest national security threat and have engaged in extensive diplomatic advocacy to generate attention on the issue (see <\/span>Green and Guilfoyle<\/span><\/a>, p. 686-687). <\/span>These efforts<\/span><\/a> contributed to the United Nations General Assembly\u2019s decision to seek the ICJ\u2019s advisory opinion on climate change.<\/span><\/p>\n

The central question we address in this post is this: What becomes of statehood when a State\u2019s entire territory disappears beneath the sea? The intuitive answer would be: no territory, no state (cf.<\/span> Shaw<\/span><\/a>, p. 190: \u201cthe disappearance, like the existence, of a state is a matter of fact\u201d;<\/span> Gerrard<\/span><\/a>, p. 584). However, the ICJ took a different turn in its opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ICJ\u2019s Position on Sea-Level Rise and Statehood<\/b><\/h2>\n

Although the question of statehood was not explicitly included in the General Assembly\u2019s request, the ICJ nonetheless addresses it \u2013 albeit briefly and not in the operative part, but in a single paragraph, nestled in the<\/span> 140-page document<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

“363. Several participants argued that sea level rise also poses a significant threat to the territorial integrity and thus to the very statehood of small island States. In their view, in the event of the complete loss of a State\u2019s territory and the displacement of its population, a strong presumption in favour of continued statehood should apply. In the view of the Court, once a State is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the ICJ offered no reasoning for this view \u2013 possibly reflecting internal disagreement (see the <\/span>contribution by Syla and Kent<\/span><\/a>). However, the last sentence suggests the ICJ\u2019s general agreement with the findings of the International Law Commission (ILC) on the issue. In its May 2025<\/span> final report<\/span><\/a> on sea-level rise in relation to international law, the ILC took a clear position in favor of continuing statehood even after the complete loss of territory, declaring:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c35. With regard to States particularly affected by climate change-related sea-level rise, there is strong support among States for the continuity of statehood and sovereignty and the maintenance of international legal personality and membership of international organizations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

It remains unclear whether the view of the ILC represents <\/span>lex lata<\/span><\/i> or rather, as suggested by<\/span> Judge Tomka<\/span><\/a> and legal scholars<\/span> De Spiegeleir and Rocha<\/span><\/a>, a progressive development of the law due to the urgent realities of climate change. Notably, there is \u2013 as yet \u2013 no State practice addressing the complete submersion of territory (see below).<\/span><\/p>\n

Discussion of Statehood in Separate Declarations<\/b><\/h2>\n

While the ICJ\u2019s advisory opinion was unanimous, a majority of judges appended separate opinions or declarations. Four of these address the issue of statehood. Judges<\/span> Aurescu<\/span><\/a> (paras. 20-24)<\/span>,<\/span> Bhandari<\/span><\/a> (para. 7),<\/span> and<\/span> Sebutinde<\/span><\/a> (para. 8)<\/span> explicitly endorse the ICJ\u2019s position and advocate for an even stronger stance in favour of continued statehood.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judge <\/span>Aurescu<\/span><\/a>, formerly a member of the ILC\u2019s study group on sea-level rise, takes the strongest stance in favor of those States endangered in their existence. He sees a clear rule of continuing statehood, based on the principle of legal stability, and argues for an obligation of third states to recognize the continued statehood and maritime entitlements of \u201cde-territorialized\u201d States (paras. 20, 23). Judges <\/span>Aurescu<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>Bhandari<\/span><\/a> propose that restitution could include the \u201ccontinued recognition by all States of the entitlements of States affected by sea-level rise to their current maritime zones as well as of their continued statehood, even if submerged.\u201d (<\/span>Aurescu, para. 24<\/span><\/a>; cf. <\/span>Bhandari, para. 7<\/span><\/a>). This is particularly interesting because restitution presupposes wrongful conduct \u2013 an aspect elaborated on by the ICJ in substantive parts of the opinion (on the role of state responsibility in the ICJ\u2019s advisory opinion, see<\/span> Paddeu and Jackson<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Wewerinke-Singh and Vinuales<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Reetz<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

In contrast, Judge Tomka, in his<\/span> declaration<\/span><\/a>, voices criticism of the ICJ\u2019s light-handed approach to the topic. He rightly points to the fundamental importance of the notion of statehood to international law and the far-reaching implications any change of the law in this regard might have (para. 2). Judge Tomka reiterates the general view that \u201cstatehood is virtually inseparable from a land and a people\u201d (para. 3) and refutes the view that the Montevideo criteria apply only to the original creation of States, not their continuing existence as such. He also calls for caution in accepting the ILC\u2019s conclusion as existing customary international law (para. 6) and highlights the exceptional relevance of (land) territory to statehood, sovereignty, and self-determination in international law (paras. 7-9).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Limited Value of Precedent<\/b><\/h2>\n

As Judge Tomka observes in his<\/span> declaration<\/span><\/a>, concerning State practice on the issue of submerged States, \u201con a narrow view, there is none\u201d (para. 5). Perhaps the closest \u201cprecedent\u201d takes us back over 200 years: when the Order of Malta lost control of Malta and thus of its territory but retained its international legal personality. The Order of Malta is a<\/span> subject of international law<\/span><\/a> sui generis<\/span><\/i> \u2013 not a State, but mostly treated as such (see<\/span> Shaw<\/span><\/a>, p. 224). It enjoys State and other forms of immunity, maintains embassies, issues diplomatic passports, and concludes treaties. Yet its non-State status limits its value as a precedent for de-territorialized statehood (see <\/span>Allen and Prost<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

A more recent and legally significant step came in August 2024, when Tuvalu and Australia concluded the<\/span> Falepili Union<\/span><\/a> treaty. This international agreement recognizes the dangers of climate change to Tuvalu\u2019s existence and aims to address these concerns by explicitly recognizing the continuing statehood and sovereignty of Tuvalu (Article 2(b)) and including a human mobility scheme for Tuvaluans to move to Australia (Article 3). More than<\/span> 80 percent<\/span><\/a> of the population of Tuvalu has since applied for climate change visas. Legally, this treaty is best understood as pre-emptive <\/span>opinio juris<\/span><\/i>, not State practice as such. The reactions of States to the first actual submersion of a State will be decisive \u2013 if a uniform position emerges, it may constitute <\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u201cinstant customary law.\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Subsequent Issues of \u201cDe-Territorialized\u201d Statehood<\/b><\/h2>\n

The ICJ did not elaborate on the legal consequences of its presumption of continuing statehood, beyond a general duty to cooperate (<\/span>para. 364<\/span><\/a>, see<\/span> De Spiegeleir\/Rocha<\/span><\/a>). In the event of complete loss of territory, such a duty might oblige third States to take specific measures, but the opinion provides little further guidance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ILC, by contrast, outlined numerous legal and political reasons for accepting the continuing statehood of submerged States: legal stability and certainty, territorial integrity, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, self-determination of peoples, and equity (<\/span>paras. 38-39<\/span><\/a>). Yet, as Judge Tomka emphasizes in his declaration, territory is still fundamental to the very concept of statehood (<\/span>paras. 3 and 8<\/span><\/a>). The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule. What, then, is the jurisdictional anchor of these States in the rough waters of international law?<\/span><\/p>\n

Transitional or Permanent?<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

A key question is whether continued statehood would be permanent or merely transitional. The ICJ\u2019s vague formulation in paragraph 363 of the opinion leaves open the circumstances under which statehood would be lost or preserved. This ambiguity allows for the interpretation that continued statehood may be understood as a \u201ctransitional phase.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

While not identical, there have been comparable cases where territory became uninhabitable and the population had to resettle elsewhere. As described by<\/span> Rayfuse<\/span><\/a>, in the 1870s, about half of Iceland\u2019s territory became uninhabitable due to a volcanic eruption, and large parts of the population resettled in Canada. However, \u201cNew Iceland eventually joined the province of Manitoba becoming fully integrated into Canada\u201d (<\/span>Rayfuse<\/span><\/a>, p. 8). Whereas such incorporation is one possible scenario, a State could alternatively turn into another legal subject over time: Once the entire population resettles in a different jurisdiction, the submerged State might (similar to the Order of Malta) continue to<\/span> entertain diplomatic missions<\/span><\/a> and be a member of international organizations \u2013 ultimately evolving into a <\/span>sui generis<\/span><\/i> subject of international law.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Territory: Maritime Zones As a Sovereignty \u201cAnchor\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

Traditionally, maritime claims are tied to the territory of the coastal State (cf. Articles 2-16<\/span> United Nations Convention on Law of the S<\/span><\/a>ea). While both the ILC (<\/span>para. 29<\/span><\/a>) and the ICJ (<\/span>para. 362<\/span><\/a>) have come to the conclusion that States are not under the obligation to update their \u201ccharts or lists of geographical co-ordinates that show the baselines and outer limit lines of their maritime zones,\u201d neither body explicitly affirms the permanence of these baselines (see also<\/span> De Spiegeleir and Rocha<\/span><\/a>). The future of the maritime zones of the sinking State thus remains uncertain.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, it would not only be unjust to deprive sunken States of maritime entitlements (as Judge Aurescu argues,<\/span> para. 23<\/span><\/a>), but these could also serve as an \u201canchor\u201d for continuing statehood. In the absence of landmass, the sunken State could continue to exercise its sovereignty over its maritime area. Further, when States that are highly vulnerable to sea-level rise negotiate with other States about possible human mobility schemes, they could use their maritime claims and connected fishing and exploitation rights as leverage (cf.<\/span> Gerrard<\/span><\/a>, pp. 598 <\/span>et seq<\/span><\/i>.).<\/span><\/p>\n

Population: Citizenship and Statelessness<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

James Crawford has noted<\/span><\/a> that the \u201cpermanent population\u201d criterion for statehood \u201cis not a rule relating to the nationality of that population.\u201d However, without territory, there can hardly be a permanent population. In order to preserve the de-territorialized State\u2019s statehood and because so far, the statehood criteria have been largely defined from a \u201cterritorial\u201d view (see<\/span> Crawford<\/span><\/a>), the remaining criteria will also have to be interpreted in a new light.<\/span><\/p>\n

One main concern with a possible disappearance of statehood is the issue of statelessness,<\/span> which must be prevented<\/span><\/a> (see e.g. the<\/span> 2009 submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on Climate Change and Statelessness<\/span><\/a>; ILC,<\/span> para. 38<\/span><\/a>). While international law allows for multiple citizenships, the question remains: What would be the role of the de-territorialized citizenship and what rights would it confer, especially considering the de-territorialized State\u2019s limited ability to exercise jurisdiction? In recent\u00a0 years, the idea of virtual copies of endangered States \u2013 such as <\/span>3D scans of their territory<\/span><\/a> uploaded to the metaverse \u2013 has emerged (e.g., by<\/span> Tuvalu<\/span><\/a>). One of the main values of such \u201cvirtual States\u201d could be the preservation of the State\u2019s cultural heritage. When displaced citizens acquire a second citizenship, the de-territorialized State\u2019s citizenship could similarly be limited to a \u201ccommemorative nationality\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Government: Self-determination vs. Sovereignty<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

To enable the effective exercise of governmental functions in a future de-territorialized State,<\/span> Tuvalu<\/span><\/a> \u201cstarted exploring a digital ID system, which will use the blockchain to connect the Tuvaluan diaspora and allow them to participate in Tuvaluan life, wherever they are.\u201d The role of government in a \u201csunken\u201d State could be to maintain connections between its diaspora and the government itself, as well as within the diaspora community.<\/span><\/p>\n

Whereas the host State would exercise sovereignty over its territory, displaced people would continue to have a right to self-determination. To remain represented by a government, however, a de-territorialized State would have to find a new seat of government (or at least a location\u00a0 to host its servers) (for more in depth analysis, see <\/span>Mitra and Sanghi<\/span><\/a>). As the exercise of regular governmental functions would probably fall outside the scope of permitted diplomatic activity (see Article 3<\/span> Vienna Convention on Diplomatic R<\/span><\/a>elations), a specific agreement between the host State and the<\/span> ex situ<\/span><\/i> government<\/span><\/a> would be advisable. Due to the <\/span>prohibition of intervention<\/span><\/a>, the <\/span>ex situ<\/span><\/i> government would be severely limited in exercising jurisdiction without the host State\u2019s consent.<\/span><\/p>\n

Even with consent, an unsolved problem could be the emergence of dual jurisdiction: While\u00a0 the host State\u2019s citizens would be governed solely by its jurisdiction, resettled communities would additionally be governed by the sunken State\u2019s (extraterritorial) jurisdiction. They would thus have to follow the rules of both States but have fewer rights than \u201cterritorial\u201d citizens (as pertains to voting, for example). Hence, people from a sunken State would be in a permanent situation of being foreigners everywhere. This could lead to double-standards and neo-colonialist power structures (for third world approaches to climate change law, see <\/span>Atapattu and Gonzalez<\/span><\/a>). Potentially, the displaced people could become a recognized (autonomous) minority in their host State.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Imperative to Prevent<\/b><\/h2>\n

Following the ICJ\u2019s opinion, only time will tell whether the Montevideo criteria are themselves \u201csinking,\u201d and what might replace them. It remains doubtful whether sunken States could be sovereign equals to States with territory, as they would necessarily rely on the goodwill of their host State to cede jurisdiction to some degree. Even though the ICJ\u2019s opinion is a<\/span> big step forward (especially) for small island States<\/span><\/a>, it cannot, by itself, preserve a State\u2019s full sovereignty once its territory is submerged.<\/span><\/p>\n

Small island States have contributed the least to climate change, yet now face an existential threat. This unfair fate must be prevented. If their territory is lost to the sea, an essential part of their sovereignty and self-determination would too be swept away beneath the waves.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion on climate change is a landmark in the development of international law. In this post, we focus on a short section of the opinion that may signal a fundamental shift in how international law conceives of statehood. We aim to decipher the ICJ’s \u201cDelphic pronouncement\u201d (Judge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2336,"featured_media":26368,"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-26578","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":"\nIs Montevideo Sinking? "Disappearing" States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ's 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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-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=\"Is Montevideo Sinking? "Disappearing" States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion on climate change is a landmark in the development of international law. In this post, we focus on a short section of the opinion that may signal a fundamental shift in how international law conceives of statehood. We aim to decipher the ICJ’s \u201cDelphic pronouncement\u201d (Judge […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-20T19:00:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-20T19:01:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1654\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Aurelio Corneo and Judith Scherer\" \/>\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=\"Aurelio Corneo and Judith Scherer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aurelio Corneo and Judith Scherer\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\"},\"headline\":\"Is Montevideo Sinking? “Disappearing” States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-20T19:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-20T19:01:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\"},\"wordCount\":2347,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\",\"name\":\"Is Montevideo Sinking? \\\"Disappearing\\\" States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ's 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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-20T19:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-20T19:01:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg\",\"width\":2480,\"height\":1654},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-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\":\"Is Montevideo Sinking? “Disappearing” States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ’s 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\":\"Aurelio Corneo\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Corneo-e1737716740328-1024x1024-1-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Aurelio Corneo\"}},{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b\",\"name\":\"Judith Scherer\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Foto_Judith-Scherer-e1755606053341-1024x1024-1-150x150.jpeg\",\"caption\":\"Judith Scherer\"}}]]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Is Montevideo Sinking? \"Disappearing\" States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ's 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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Is Montevideo Sinking? \"Disappearing\" States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate Change - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion on climate change is a landmark in the development of international law. In this post, we focus on a short section of the opinion that may signal a fundamental shift in how international law conceives of statehood. We aim to decipher the ICJ’s \u201cDelphic pronouncement\u201d (Judge […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2025-08-20T19:00:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-20T19:01:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2480,"height":1654,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Aurelio Corneo and Judith Scherer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@toniatigre","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Aurelio Corneo and Judith Scherer","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/"},"author":{"name":"Aurelio Corneo and Judith Scherer","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b"},"headline":"Is Montevideo Sinking? “Disappearing” States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change","datePublished":"2025-08-20T19:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-20T19:01:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/"},"wordCount":2347,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/","name":"Is Montevideo Sinking? \"Disappearing\" States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ's 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\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg","datePublished":"2025-08-20T19:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-20T19:01:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/11.jpg","width":2480,"height":1654},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/20\/is-montevideo-sinking-disappearing-states-and-de-territorialized-statehood-following-the-icjs-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":"Is Montevideo Sinking? “Disappearing” States and De-territorialized Statehood Following the ICJ’s 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":"Aurelio Corneo","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Corneo-e1737716740328-1024x1024-1-150x150.jpg","caption":"Aurelio Corneo"}},{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/25d163e261c920a883b184da07c9cf7b","name":"Judith Scherer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/08\/Foto_Judith-Scherer-e1755606053341-1024x1024-1-150x150.jpeg","caption":"Judith Scherer"}}]]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26578","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=26578"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26578\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26599,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26578\/revisions\/26599"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}