{"id":26774,"date":"2025-08-29T06:24:02","date_gmt":"2025-08-29T11:24:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=26774"},"modified":"2025-08-28T06:25:38","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T11:25:38","slug":"closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"

The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ\u2019s) <\/span>Advisory Opinion on Climate Change<\/span><\/a> arrived with force. Given its far-reaching implications, there is no doubt that the opinion now will be subject to conflicting interpretations. In this post, I highlight the <\/span>interpretive compass<\/span><\/i> that the opinion supplies to those who will now interpret what the ICJ is saying and not saying<\/span>.<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At a <\/span>substantive <\/span><\/i>level, the ICJ clarified a number of important climate obligations (see analysis by e.g. <\/span>Wewerinke-Singh<\/span> and <\/span><\/a>Reetz)<\/span><\/a>, characterizing them as obligations <\/span>erga omnes <\/span><\/i>(paras 439-443)<\/span>,<\/span><\/i> upgrading 1.5\u00b0C from aspiration to an agreed temperature goal (paras 224-225), demanding a stringent due-diligence test (para 246) and establishing that unlawful warming can entail full reparation (paras 420 and 449-250, see analysis by e.g. <\/span>Tigre, Martini, Cohen and Rocha)<\/span>. <\/span><\/a>But at this level, a number of questions remain, as for example noted by <\/span>von Bernstorff and Venzke<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>Odermatt<\/span><\/a>. New fossil licenses or subsidies <\/span>may <\/span><\/i>be wrongful (para 427), but <\/span>when<\/span><\/i> are they wrongful? Is there now a human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; what did the ICJ mean when saying that this right is \u201cinherent in the enjoyment of other human rights\u201d (para 393, see analysis by e.g. <\/span>Boyd<\/span><\/a>)?\u00a0 And what does \u201cfull reparation\u201d more concretely mean in a climate context?<\/span><\/p>\n

However, the ICJ\u2019s opinion did more than list climate obligations; at a second, <\/span>methodological <\/span><\/i>level, it showed how those obligations should be read \u2013 weaving treaty text, General Assembly resolutions and foundational principles into a single, coherent rule-set (as also analysed by <\/span>Wewerinke-Singh<\/span><\/a>).<\/span>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

And since that same interpretive compass as the ICJ itself applied should now, arguably, guide readers of the opinion itself, many of the uncertainties and gaps critics spotlight can arguably be closed by applying exactly the method the ICJ just deployed.<\/span><\/p>\n

One Text, Different Interpretive Lenses<\/b><\/h2>\n

To understand the ICJ\u2019s method of interpretation, it is useful to begin with how some of the involved States argued in the written proceedings, either to indirectly avoid or to allocate responsibility. Ronald Dworkin famously said, in his book <\/span>Law\u2019s Empire<\/span><\/i><\/a>, that any legal interpretation must meet the double test of <\/span>fit <\/span><\/i>and <\/span>justification<\/span><\/i>. In this context, <\/span>fit<\/span><\/i> means straightforward <\/span>textual support<\/span><\/i>\u2014does the reading actually map onto the legal materials under scrutiny? <\/span>Justification<\/span><\/i> means the <\/span>principled rationale<\/span><\/i> for preferring one permissible reading over another: the reading must show the law as a <\/span>coherent scheme of principles<\/span><\/i> (e.g., equal concern and respect, fairness, non-arbitrariness, protection of rights, and integrity) rather than as a patchwork of ad hoc decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Used as a heuristic rather than a rigid dichotomy, this distinction helps to read, for example, the written statements of the <\/span>United States<\/span><\/a>, the <\/span>European Union<\/span><\/a> (EU), and <\/span>Vanuatu<\/span><\/a>. They, arguably, line up along a spectrum of justification<\/span>:<\/b> at one end, <\/span>consent-first<\/span><\/i> positions justify their readings by pointing to explicit acceptance and minimal extension beyond the text; at the other, <\/span>coherence-first<\/span><\/i> positions justify them by showing how rules and principles hang together as a consistent whole that treats like cases alike and expresses the community\u2019s rights-based commitments. Differences in which materials are brought into view\u2014and how they are read\u2014thus reflect, even if not always made explicit, how each party <\/span>justifies <\/span><\/i>its interpretation in terms of principle.<\/span><\/p>\n

The United States adopted the consent-first view. Climate law, it argued, is basically comprised of the Paris Agreement, \u201cthe clearest expression of States\u2019 consent.\u201d Obligations are procedural. There is no free-standing due diligence or human rights duty, and any putative custom is satisfied once a State follows the Paris Agreement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Vanuatu was at the opposite end of the spectrum, adopting the coherence-first view. Invoking no-harm, equity, and precaution alongside the treaty text, it asked the ICJ to craft a single, normatively coherent rule-set, concluding, for example, that fossil-fuel subsidies cannot be squared with existing obligations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Everyone else sat at or between those poles<\/span>.<\/b> The decisive variable was how far each brief let principles and other duties reshape the interpretation of rules. <\/span>Saudi Arabia<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>China<\/span><\/a> stayed close to the U.S. line but selectively invoked the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and sustainable development while avoiding no-harm. The EU leaned toward Vanuatu, yet softened CBDR-RC and stressed party consent when it came to remedies, hoping to keep classic \u201cfull reparation\u201d rules at bay. The other statements can be read along the same lines.<\/span><\/p>\n

Across the spectrum, all sides could thus claim textual \u201cfit\u201d; what changed was, basically, the weight granted to e.g., no-harm, equity, and CBDR-RC, i.e. how their textual readings were justified in the legal framework. Even when not stated outright, this difference in weighting operated \u2014 using the substantive\/methodological distinction \u2014 on the methodological level: it can be reconstructed as divergent readings of the interpretation rules in articles 31\u201333 in the <\/span>Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties<\/span><\/a> (VCLT) and corresponding customary rules of interpretation. Depending on the justificatory starting point\u00a0 \u2013 consent-first<\/span> or coherence-first \u2013 different VCLT components take centre stage (e.g., ordinary meaning versus context and object-and-purpose, the force of subsequent agreement\/practice, and which relevant rules are pulled into the frame).<\/span><\/p>\n

The ICJ\u2019s prescribed method of interpretation<\/b><\/h2>\n

Viewed through the \u201cfit and justification\u201d test, the ICJ clearly followed Vanuatu\u2019s path: it chose a reading that weaves together the treaties, customary law, human rights, and general principles into a textual and normatively coherent web of rules (see also the excellent analysis by <\/span>Wewerinke-Singh<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Early in the advisory opinion, the judges set out the familiar doctrinal gateway for the treaty-based parts of their analysis: interpretation begins with Articles 31-33 of VCLT. For obligations arising under custom and general principles, the ICJ applies a parallel method \u2013 grounding rules in their accepted formulation, reading them in context, and integrating \u201cother relevant rules\u201d where applicable. What follows, in both strands, is anything but a narrow consent-only exercise. Some examples are provided below.<\/span><\/p>\n

Treaty text interpreted within a principled frame<\/span><\/i><\/h3>\n

The ICJ identifies the 1.5\u00b0C floor from hard sources \u2013 the <\/span>Glasgow <\/span><\/a>and <\/span>Dubai<\/span><\/a> CMA decisions (Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement) treated as a \u201csubsequent agreement\u201d under VCLT 31(3)(a), read together with the \u201cbest available science\u201d clause of Paris Art. 4(1) (paras224-225). This reading takes place within the interpretive frame set earlier (paras 146\u2013161), in which the no-harm duty and the principles of precaution, cooperation, and equity\/CBDR-RC inform an object-and-purpose analysis. The result is that 1.5\u00b0C, rather than \u201cwell below 2\u00b0C\u201d, is treated as the benchmark for all States\u2019 conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

Due diligence with sharper edges<\/span><\/i><\/h3>\n

Drawing on the customary no-harm rule (para 135), the ICJ said the due-diligence obligation under the Paris Agreement means a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is lawful only if it can credibly keep the State on a 1.5\u00b0C-consistent path (paras 228, 251). \u201cHighest possible ambition\u201d thus requires not just progressive targets on paper but concrete <\/span>implementation<\/span><\/i> because letting emissions run beyond that path would violate the no-harm duty.<\/span><\/p>\n

Soft-law carried into the core<\/span><\/i><\/h3>\n

General Assembly Resolution 76\/300<\/span><\/a> is treated by the ICJ as evidencing broad <\/span>opinio juris<\/span><\/i> (paras 392-393) of a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the ICJ\u2019s view, when read together with existing rights treaties, the resolution reinforces the view that climate action must protect human dignity and health, supplying one of several normative pillars, contrary to the United States. submission that branded the resolution as merely aspirational.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reparation sized for climate damage<\/span><\/i><\/h3>\n

The ICJ confirmed that the Paris regime is <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> a <\/span>lex specialis<\/span><\/i> that displaces the general law of State responsibility, so the (In many aspects) customary rules of \u201cfull reparation\u201d expressed by the\u00a0 <\/span>International Law Commission<\/span><\/a> (ILC) remains fully in force (paras 450-453). The ICJ justified that move by implying (paras 418-420) that only the ILC framework can uphold the \u201cobject and purpose\u201d of the climate treaties \u2013 protecting people and ecosystems from dangerous harm \u2013 when losses are large-scale and irreversible. Hence, \u201cfull reparation\u201d may include ecosystem restoration, rebuilt defences, and compensation for affected individuals, going beyond the Paris finance channels the ICJ discussed earlier. (As a side note, a justification of this interpretation, fully consistent with the ICJ\u2019s approach, would have been to point out the obvious inconsistency that otherwise would have ruled: States not a party to Paris would face the full remedies regime in international law while Paris parties would \u201cget away\u201d with much lower liability.)<\/span><\/p>\n

In short, for treaty interpretation, the ICJ read articles 31-33VCLT in a way that implied a tight integration of ordinary meaning, context, and \u201cother relevant rules\u201d with foundational duties and principles. For obligations arising under customary law or general principles, it applies a parallel, integrative method to produce a coherent and principled rule-set.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Filling the gaps with the ICJ\u2019s interpretation method<\/b><\/h2>\n

Run the opinion through the interpretation method the ICJ itself employed and many of its gaps arguably tighten into working rules.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fossil licences, subsidies, and the implied phase-out<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Paragraph 427 warns that continuing fossil extraction, issuing new permits, or prolonging subsidies for fossil fuel development <\/span>may<\/span><\/i> be an internationally wrongful act. Read alongside the CMA consensus that 1.5\u00b0C is now the legal floor, the <\/span>Glasgow Climate Pact<\/span><\/a>\u2019s call to <\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/i>phase-down<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/i> unabated coal and <\/span>\u201c<\/span><\/i>phase-out<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/i> inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, plus the no-harm duty and precautionary principle together with stringent due diligence, that tentative \u201cmay\u201d arguably hardens into a presumption: unless a government can prove \u2013 with credible science and carbon-budget math \u2013 that extra fossil capacity is consistent with a 1.5\u00b0C pathway, there are now strong arguments that the project fails due diligence. In effect, the burden of proof shifts, turning \u201cphase-out\u201d (a term missing in the opinion) from soft pledge into the default legal presumption. Of course, a number of complex questions remain, also within the ICJ\u2019s interpretive framework \u2013 not least how to find the right balance between the no-harm duty, pointing toward restricting fossil licenses, and the CBDR-RC principle (noting that duties prevail over principles).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Reparation<\/span><\/i><\/h3>\n

When the ICJ addressed remedies, it quoted the ILC formula of \u201cfull reparation\u201d but immediately explained that climate damage is often permanent and widespread. That insight pulls the concept far beyond diplomatic apologies: making victims whole can now mean restoring mangroves, rebuilding flood defences, transferring clean-tech know-how, or paying households for lost livelihoods \u2013 whatever the science and rights evidence show is actually required. The Paris finance channels are only a starting point; a State that offers less must justify why that smaller package truly repairs the harm.<\/span><\/p>\n

Human-rights dimension<\/span><\/i><\/h3>\n

Paragraph 393 of the ICJ opinion calls a clean, healthy and sustainable environment \u201cinherent\u201d in existing human-rights treaties, and <\/span>General Assembly Resolution 76\/300<\/span><\/a> confirms broad acceptance of that view. The effect is far-reaching: whenever a policy foreseeably degrades air, water, or climate, it now engages obligations under the <\/span>International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights<\/span><\/a> \u2013 unless the State can explain, in rights terms, why the interference is nevertheless permissible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Seen in that light, the opinion\u2019s silences are elastic restraints. Stretch them with unsupported emissions, under-funded remedies, or open-ended licensing, and they snap back as concrete legal faults. Applying the ICJ\u2019s own method of interpretation, it will not be enough, when courts, policy makers, COP negotiators and others interpret the Opinion \u2013 taken on its own or within the wider corpus \u2013 to focus on textual fit, i.e. what the ICJ explicitly says or does not say. Any reading must harmonize with the duties and principles that permeate and justify both treaty and customary law, with particular weight on the no-harm rule, precaution, and equity\/CBDR-RC.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Closing Note<\/b><\/h2>\n

How the opinion is read in practice is, of course, another matter. Courts, arbitrators, and political actors may reject the gap-filling exercises suggested here. The near-future will show the distance between what the ICJ’s method <\/span>should <\/span><\/i>support and what future decision-makers will <\/span>actually<\/span><\/i> accept.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At COP 30 (Conference of the Parties) in Bel\u00e9m, ministers will wrangle over how \u201csufficient\u201d the new climate-finance goal must be, and whether \u201cphase-down\u201d of coal is a slogan or a legal trigger. In Brussels, the 2040 climate target faces the same test, while in Geneva, the WTO\u2019s fossil-subsidy reform stalls over which tax breaks to cut. Read through a strict consent-only lens, and these are political choices. Read through the ICJ\u2019s frame \u2013 science, equity, no-harm, precaution \u2013 they become legal ones: finance must be capable of delivering 1.5\u00b0C and repairing loss and damage, coal and subsidy policies must be plausibly 1.5\u00b0C-compatible, and the burden falls on governments to prove it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The next round of climate politics could therefore become an exercise in forensic interpretation, not in treaty drafting.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ\u2019s) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change arrived with force. Given its far-reaching implications, there is no doubt that the opinion now will be subject to conflicting interpretations. In this post, I highlight the interpretive compass that the opinion supplies to those who will now interpret what the ICJ is saying […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2336,"featured_media":26182,"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-26774","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":"\nClosing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion - 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\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ\u2019s) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change arrived with force. Given its far-reaching implications, there is no doubt that the opinion now will be subject to conflicting interpretations. In this post, I highlight the interpretive compass that the opinion supplies to those who will now interpret what the ICJ is saying […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-29T11:24:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/07\/ICJ.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"478\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"David Frydlinger\" \/>\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=\"David Frydlinger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 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\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"David Frydlinger\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/694af48f2ce27d19a55eab8164232724\"},\"headline\":\"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-29T11:24:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2113,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/ICJ.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\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/\",\"name\":\"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/ICJ.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-29T11:24:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/ICJ.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/ICJ.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":478},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/29\\\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion\"}]},{\"@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\\\/694af48f2ce27d19a55eab8164232724\",\"name\":\"David Frydlinger\",\"description\":\"David Frydlinger\u00a0is partner at Cirio law firm in Stockholm, Sweden, where he leads the firm\u2019s sustainability practice.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/mtigre\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/toniatigre\"],\"url\":\"#molongui-disabled-link\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion - 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\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"The International Court of Justice\u2019s (ICJ\u2019s) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change arrived with force. Given its far-reaching implications, there is no doubt that the opinion now will be subject to conflicting interpretations. In this post, I highlight the interpretive compass that the opinion supplies to those who will now interpret what the ICJ is saying […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2025-08-29T11:24:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":478,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/07\/ICJ.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"David Frydlinger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@toniatigre","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"David Frydlinger","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/"},"author":{"name":"David Frydlinger","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/694af48f2ce27d19a55eab8164232724"},"headline":"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion","datePublished":"2025-08-29T11:24:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/"},"wordCount":2113,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/07\/ICJ.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\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/","name":"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/07\/ICJ.jpg","datePublished":"2025-08-29T11:24:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/07\/ICJ.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2025\/07\/ICJ.jpg","width":640,"height":478},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2025\/08\/29\/closing-the-silences-using-the-icjs-interpretive-method-to-read-its-climate-opinion\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Closing the Silences: Using the ICJ\u2019s Interpretive Method to Read Its Climate Opinion"}]},{"@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\/694af48f2ce27d19a55eab8164232724","name":"David Frydlinger","description":"David Frydlinger\u00a0is partner at Cirio law firm in Stockholm, Sweden, where he leads the firm\u2019s sustainability practice.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/mtigre","https:\/\/x.com\/toniatigre"],"url":"#molongui-disabled-link"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26774","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=26774"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26789,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26774\/revisions\/26789"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}