Key-Takeaways from the Webinars: ‘Pleading for Human Rights and Climate Justice: Reflections on the climate hearings before the International Court of Justice’
By Han Ying Jie*
On the 12th and 13th of March 2025, World's Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ), in collaboration with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), hosted two webinars entitled ‘Pleading for Human Rights and Climate Justice: Reflections on the climate hearings before the International Court of Justice’. The webinars aimed to reflect on the oral phase of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Change (Climate AO) proceedings which were held at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from the 2nd to the 13th of December 2024.
The webinars explored various dimensions of the Climate AO, presenting a diverse array of perspectives: ranging from the views of experts in law and policy who have closely followed the proceedings, to those of legal representatives who advocated on behalf of their States before the ICJ. While the Court continues its deliberations, speakers and audience members engaged in lively discussions about the ideal outcomes of the forthcoming advisory opinion and the potential pathways for accountability that could emerge from its delivery. The webinars provided attendees with a unique opportunity to hear directly from diplomats and legal counsels who have worked tirelessly throughout this process, alongside representatives of civil society and youth advocates who have driven the global campaign to secure the advisory opinion.
Context of the Climate AO
The historic Climate Advisory Opinion (AO) originated with the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu, which spearheaded the initiative before the United Nations General Assembly to request an authoritative interpretation from the ICJ regarding States' obligations on climate change under international law. Notably, this groundbreaking effort was significantly propelled by youth activism, reflecting the pivotal role young people play in driving climate accountability and influencing international environmental lawmaking. Youth-led advocacy brought urgency and moral clarity to Vanuatu's initiative, underscoring the generational dimension of climate justice. This youth-led momentum and advocacy culminated in the resolution's unanimous adoption. Since then, the Climate AO prompted an unprecedented number of submissions presented to the ICJ during the first two weeks of December 2024. These submissions centred on the two key questions posed in the Climate AO request. In essence, they are: (1) What legal obligations do States have under international law regarding climate change? and (2) What legal consequences arise from breaches of these obligations?
The release of the Court’s advisory opinion holds the potential to become a vital tool in advancing climate justice and achieving a sustainable future. It could significantly clarify States' obligations under international law, open new pathways to hold States accountable for failures to meet these obligations, and bolster the protection of human rights—particularly the rights of communities most severely impacted by the climate crisis, such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and future generations.
Key Insights from the Webinars
Beyond clarifying States' climate obligations, the proceedings themselves have significantly elucidated the complex and multifaceted dimensions of the climate crisis. This complexity was highlighted in panellists' analyses of States’ arguments, as well as their views on the broader implications of the Climate AO. Drawing from their personal experiences in advocacy, professional practice, and direct participation in the AO proceedings, the panellists shared reflections that spoke intimately about the varied realities, challenges, and hopes of the States and organisations they represent.
West Webinar: Key Messages
The West Webinar was moderated by José Rodríguez-Orúe, strategic advisor to WYCJ, who opened the session by setting the scene for the Climate AO, characterising it as a potential turning point in clarifying States’ climate obligations and strengthening the protection of human rights.
The first speaker was Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Associate Professor of Sustainability Law at the University of Amsterdam and an attorney at Blue Ocean Law, who represented Vanuatu before the ICJ. In response to a question regarding the implications of the Climate AO proceedings on the rule of law and multilateralism, Wewerike-Singh first framed the Climate AO as a critical departure from the voluntary approach under the Paris Agreement, emphasising its potential to strengthen accountability through binding international obligations rooted in human rights and State responsibility. She particularly underscored the essential role of adaptation and finance as critical enablers of climate ambition, noting that developed countries' duty to cooperate will require significantly increased resources for these efforts. Regarding loss and damage, Wewerinke-Singh emphasised that current funding levels are negligible, but expressed confidence that the forthcoming advisory opinion would catalyse substantial contributions to loss and damage funds. Additionally, she anticipated increased activity from regional tribunals, predicting that these bodies would leverage the advisory opinion to enhance regional climate accountability and ambition. In closing, she expressed cautious optimism, envisioning strengthened regional alliances and greater accountability of States, significantly reinforcing international climate action.
The second speaker was Patrícia Galvão Teles, Legal Advisor for the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who represented Portugal at the Climate AO hearings. In response to a question on the European perspective of the proceedings, Galvão Teles first highlighted the resulting opinion’s transformative potential in the region. Reflecting on Portugal’s active participation, she emphasised its solidarity with SIDS and Caribbean nations, alongside its own status as a climate-vulnerable State experiencing severe droughts and intensified forest fires. She underscored how Portugal's engagement in multiple international processes, such as the ongoing climate litigation before the European Court of Human Rights, demonstrates Europe’s increasing mobilisation on climate action.
The third speaker was David R. Boyd, Associate Professor of Law, Policy and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment. Boyd highlighted that the right to a healthy and clean environment emerged prominently in the ICJ proceedings because the climate crisis is fundamentally a human rights crisis. He emphasised that this right, recognised by the majority of UN Member States, is the most powerful tool available in human rights law for ensuring urgent climate action. Boyd noted that State submissions overwhelmingly identified this right as binding under customary international law, forcing States to undertake ambitious measures such as phasing out fossil fuels and ending subsidies. Ultimately, Boyd expressed optimism that affirming this right through the advisory opinion would drive real-world action, compelling States toward decisive, rights-based responses to the climate emergency. In his words, “we have to build a global coalition of unprecedented size and scope to secure the sustainable future against the forces of darkness that are trying to steal that from beneath our feet”.
The fourth speaker was Alfonso Ascencio Herrera, Deputy Head of Mission at the Mexican Embassy in The Hague. Ascencio Herrera underscored Mexico’s emphasis on interpreting international climate obligations harmoniously within the broader framework of international law, an approach which reflects the unified and coherent nature of the global legal system. Drawing from the International Law Commission’s work, he argued that climate and human rights obligations must be understood as mutually reinforcing. With regards to accountability, he stressed that the ICJ proceedings could significantly clarify States’ responsibilities for climate-related harm, including rules around compensation and reparations. Ascencio Herrera also highlighted the far-reaching significance of the advisory opinion, noting it will influence not only UN General Assembly resolutions but also guide the future development of international climate law. Ultimately, he concluded that the Court’s opinion would profoundly shape global climate justice, both now and for generations to come.
The fifth speaker was Kate Mackintosh, Executive Director of the UCLA Law Promise Institute, who represented Palestine before the ICJ. Mackintosh spoke on the linkages between States’ climate change obligations and armed conflict, and emphasised that the Climate AO must acknowledge their intersections. She stressed the critical need for the ICJ to recognise the intersection between armed conflict and climate change obligations. She emphasised that international climate standards remain fully applicable during occupation and warfare, highlighting the significant yet overlooked greenhouse gas emissions from military activities. Citing international humanitarian law principles on environmental protection, Mackintosh called for the explicit inclusion of the climate system within these protections. She illustrated the urgency through examples from Gaza, where conflict-related emissions vastly intensified Palestine’s climate impact, arguing that effective climate action depends fundamentally on respecting States' rights to self-determination.
The sixth speaker was Louise Fournier, Legal Counsel for Climate Justice and Liability at Greenpeace International. Fournier underscored the pivotal role of civil society — especially the youth — in initiating and shaping the ICJ proceedings, highlighting three critical contributions: grounding the advisory opinion in the lived experiences of frontline communities, harnessing storytelling to humanise the climate crisis, and mobilising collective power to demand ambitious outcomes. She particularly emphasised activities both within and beyond the courtroom, such as the People’s Assembly, candlelight vigils, and storytelling events, which bridged abstract legal debates with community wisdom, indigenous knowledge, and cultural diversity. Fournier concluded by stressing civil society’s ongoing responsibility to democratise and popularise the Court’s opinion, ensuring its outcomes align with the real-world needs and aspirations of those most affected by climate change.
Last but not least to speak was Zachary Phillips, Crown Counsel at the Attorney General’s Chamber of Antigua and Barbuda, who appeared on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda at the ICJ. Phillips highlighted Antigua and Barbuda’s pride in the collaborative efforts between SIDS and civil society that made the advisory proceedings possible. He critiqued arguments that international obligations cannot effectively govern climate change, emphasising that such views wrongly isolate climate law from broader international obligations. Phillips stressed that the advisory opinion would not replace but complement UNFCCC negotiations, reinforcing rather than undermining the existing climate regime. He acknowledged attribution of climate harms as a complex challenge but saw significant potential in the ICJ providing clarity on forms of reparation, especially compensation, to address climate finance issues. Phillips suggested the Court could offer invaluable guidance on exactly when States' climate obligations crystallised historically, thus strengthening accountability. Ultimately, he envisioned the advisory opinion empowering SIDS in future negotiations, offering stronger legal foundations to counteract political manoeuvring within processes like COP.
East Webinar: Key Messages
The East Webinar was moderated by Theresa Amor-Jürgenssen, Legal Advocacy Deputy for WYCJ, who began the session by contextualising the Climate AO as a pivotal moment for global climate justice—highlighting the extraordinary contributions of youth, women, and Indigenous peoples from around the world.
The first speaker was Cynthia Houniuhi, President of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), who represented the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) before the ICJ. Houniuhi described addressing the ICJ as the "single greatest honour" of her life, highlighting the unprecedented significance of young people, particularly from SIDS, having their voices heard before the Court. She emphasised the Pacific region's powerful representation as evidence of youth commitment to climate justice. Expressing hope for a progressive advisory opinion, she urged the Court to clearly articulate States’ obligations regarding climate change, emphasising intergenerational equity and the protection of human rights. Looking forward, Houniuhi stressed the importance of leveraging the advisory opinion to strengthen climate action, holding States accountable and maximising its impact in this critical decade.
The second speaker was Ilan Kiloe, Head of Political and Security & Legal Affairs of MSG, which he represented at the ICJ proceedings. Kiloe highlighted the right to self-determination as central to MSG’s intervention, emphasising its foundational status in international law and human rights instruments. He explained that climate change severely undermines this right by disrupting States' autonomy over their economic priorities — citing examples such as Vanuatu redirecting resources from development to disaster recovery after cyclones and earthquakes. Further, Kiloe stressed that climate-induced displacement threatens Pacific communities' existence, culture, and identity, underscoring why an ambitious ICJ opinion must clearly acknowledge breaches of self-determination. He also rejected lex specialis arguments confining climate obligations solely to frameworks like the Paris Agreement, advocating instead for broader recognition of fundamental human rights directly impacted by climate change.
The third speaker was Felina Yu, Senior State Solicitor at the Office of the Secretary General, Philippines, who appeared at the ICJ on behalf of the Philippines. Yu emphasised the necessity of a holistic legal approach to climate obligations, integrating human rights, sustainable development, and intergenerational equity. Highlighting climate impacts on vulnerable communities and SIDS, she argued that human rights frameworks reinforce the moral and legal imperative for urgent climate action. Yu expressed hope that the ICJ would recognize the human right to a healthy environment, which parallels a domestic remedy in the Philippines, the writ of kalikasan, strengthening global commitments to ecological preservation and judicial protections. She underscored that an ambitious advisory opinion could clarify States' obligations comprehensively, reinforce global accountability mechanisms, and empower communities worldwide to pursue more effective, legally grounded climate responses.
The fourth speaker was Justin Sobion, Senior Tutor at the University of Auckland and ICJ counsel for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada. To start, Sobion vividly depicted the devastating impacts of climate change on Caribbean nations, highlighting abnormal and intensifying hurricanes, unprecedented sea-level rise, and severe economic devastation—at times exceeding twice a nation's GDP. He stressed the urgency of debt relief and genuine reparations over mere loans. Reflecting on regional coordination, Sobion celebrated the historic unity among Caribbean States at the ICJ, emphasising the unprecedented scale and solidarity of CARICOM’s representation. He described this collective effort as a powerful demonstration of multilateralism and SIDS solidarity, underscoring the strength found in cross-regional collaboration with Pacific and African partners.
The fifth speaker was Cristelle Pratt, former Assistant Secretary General for Environment & Climate Action and ICJ counsel for the Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS). Pratt highlighted OACPS’s critical role in countering misleading arguments by major polluting States, which aimed to limit climate obligations solely to existing climate treaties, deny individual State accountability, and frame loss-and-damage funds as sufficient reparations. She emphasised that these arguments dangerously obscure the broader tapestry of international law, which includes human rights, customary international law, and maritime law – as affirmed recently by ITLOS. This risks shifting the burden unfairly onto the Global South, which suffers the greatest impacts but has contributed least to climate change. Pratt urged the ICJ to reject these flawed perspectives and reinforce a robust legal framework that recognises States’ comprehensive responsibilities. Such an advisory opinion would operationalise climate justice, ensuring accountability and providing meaningful protection for the world’s most vulnerable communities.
The final speaker was Johanna Gusman, former Advisor to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and, at present, Senior Attorney at CIEL; she also represented the Pacific Community at the ICJ proceedings. Gusman emphasised the pivotal role of the advisory opinion in addressing fossil fuel subsidies, highlighting the opportunity for the ICJ to unequivocally declare such subsidies incompatible with both climate commitments and human rights obligations. She praised youth-led advocacy for bringing intergenerational equity and self-determination to the forefront of international legal discourse. Looking forward, Gusman envisioned that a strong advisory opinion would significantly influence future COP negotiations, amplifying demands for a just transition and decisive action on fossil fuels—priorities often sidelined within traditional UNFCCC discussions.
Conclusion
The webinars not only highlighted the profound legal, human rights, and moral dimensions of the climate crisis but also illuminated pathways for meaningful global action. The diverse perspectives shared during the sessions underscored the urgent need for clarity, accountability, and justice within international climate law. As the world anticipates the delivery of the advisory opinion, these discussions remind us of the collective responsibility we hold to safeguard the environment, protect human rights, and secure a sustainable future for generations to come.
*Ying Jie is a Master of Laws candidate specialising in international environmental law and ecological jurisprudence.