Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies

Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies

Legal Basis of International State Responsibility for Climate Change: Emphasizing the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice

Document Type : ISI

Author
Fariborz Safari
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Humanity Faculty, Hazrat-e Masoumeh University, Qom, Iran
10.22059/jrels.2026.404039.608
Abstract
Introduction
Climate change constitutes one of the most pressing global challenges, with profound consequences for the environment, the economy, and international law. States bear primary customary and treaty-based obligations to prevent and control greenhouse gas emissions. This research investigates whether states can be held internationally responsible for their role in climate change and compelled to compensate for resulting damages. The study analyzes the legal foundations for state responsibility, examining the applicability of the International Law Commission's (ILC) 2001 Draft Articles, with central emphasis on the landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. The paper investigates core challenges, including attribution of conduct, causation in cumulative environmental harm, and responsibility for long-term aggregated damage.

Method
This research employs a doctrinal legal methodology, qualitatively analyzing primary and secondary legal sources. Primary sources include the UN Charter, the 1992 UNFCCC, the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 2001 ILC Draft Articles, and the pivotal 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion. The analysis dissects the ICJ's findings on the applicability of general state responsibility rules, the standard of "stringent due diligence," and the Court's approach to attribution, cumulative damage, and causality. The study extensively examines international case law, including foundational cases such as the Corfu Channel Case (1949) and the Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941), establishing the "no-harm" rule; the Island of Palmas Case (1928) and the Lotus Case (1927) on sovereignty limits; the Lake Lanoux Arbitration (1957); and recent ICJ jurisprudence, including the Pulp Mills Case (2010), the Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua Case (2018), and the Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights in the Caribbean Sea Case (2022). Secondary sources include scholarly works and official ILC reports.

Conclusions
The analysis yields several significant conclusions. Primarily, the ICJ's 2025 Advisory Opinion provides definitive legal clarity by confirming that the customary rules of state responsibility, codified in the ILC's 2001 Draft Articles, are fully applicable to the context of climate change. The Court firmly rejected arguments that the climate change regime constitutes a "self-contained" system precluding general secondary rules, affirming that states cannot evade scrutiny under general international law. The ICJ establishes that states' primary obligations carry a legal standard of "stringent due diligence," necessitating robust measures to reduce emissions beyond mere good-faith efforts. The Court clarified that the internationally wrongful act is not the emission itself, but rather a state's failure to exercise due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system. This framing allows attribution of responsibility for a state's legislative and regulatory failures without needing to attribute every individual emission from private actors directly to the state. The study finds that the opinion, while groundbreaking, avoids the most challenging practical questions. It acknowledges the difficulty of establishing a causal link between a specific state's contribution to cumulative global emissions and a specific climate-related event and does not provide a clear mechanism for apportioning liability among the multitude of responsible states, leaving significant room for future litigation. Despite these unresolved complexities, the ICJ's opinion is a watershed moment. It significantly strengthens the legal and political impetus for states to comply with their mitigation commitments by raising the prospect of legal accountability and provides a powerful tool for vulnerable states and non-state actors. This research establishes that the principle of territorial sovereignty is not a shield for states to cause transboundary environmental harm but a source of legal obligation. The "no-harm" rule, reinforced by the ICJ's opinion, is evolving to form a firmer foundation for a global regime of state responsibility for climate change, promising a significant impact on future international legal discourse and policy.
Keywords
Climate Change
Environmental Law
International Court of Justice
International Responsibility of States
Paris Agreement
Subjects
References
Armstrong, C. (2017). Justice and Natural Resources: An Egalitarian Theory. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Beigzadeh, E., & Afshari, M. (2011). Climate Change from International Security to Human Security in International Law. Legal Research Quarterly, (14), 211-243. https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56744.html (Accessed 13 August 2025). [In Persian]
Bergkamp (2021). Liability and Environment: Private and Public Law Aspects of Civil Liability for Environmental Harm in an International Context. Netherlands: Brill.
Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C. )2009. International Law & the Environment. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burri, T. (2024). The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: A Data Analysis of Participants’ Submissions. American Society of International Law (ASIL) INSIGHTS, 28(10). (Accessed 17 September 2025).
Chowdhury, S.R. (1988). Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Substratum of the Seoul Declaration. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Crawford, J. (2019). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Gailhofer, P., Krebs, D., Proelss, A., Schmalenbach, K., & Verheyen, R. (2022). Corporate Liability for Transboundary Environmental Harm: An International and Transnational Perspective. Germany: Springer International Publishing.
Ghazi, A. (1999). Fundamental Rights and Political Institutions, Tehran: Tehran University Press. [In Persian].
Handl, G., (1980). State Liability for Accidental Transnational Environmental Damage by Private Persons. 74/3 American Journal of International Law, 525-565. (Accessed 20 June 2024).
Hofbauer, J. (2016). Sovereignty in the Exercise of the Right to Self-Determination. Netherlands: Brill.
ILC, (2001). Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities. UN Doc. A/56/10.
ILC, (1996). Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-eighth Sess., UN Doc. A/51/10 p.104.
Javid, M. J., & Javaheri Tehrani, M. (2008). From the Path to the Subjectivity of Philological Terms or the Jurisprudence of State Language in Constitutional Law and Political Sciences. Journal of Islamic Law, 9(1), 128-99. DOI: 10.30497/law.2012.1272 (Accessed 7 June 2025). [In Persian].
Jafari Langroodi, M. J. (2006). Legal Terminology. Tehran: Ganj Danesh. [In Persian].
Jennings, R., and Watts, A. (1992). Oppenheim’s International Law. London: Longman.
Madani, S. J. (2008). Generalities of Basic Rights. Tehran: Paydar Publications. [In Persian].
Meessen, K.M. (2024). Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice. Germany: Brill.
Mensi, A. (2022). Indigenous Peoples, Natural Resources and Permanent Sovereignty. Netherlands: Brill.
Momenirad, A., & Khodaparast, N. (2015). Criticizing european union countermeasure (oil sanction) against Iran from the aspect of the law of international responsibility of state. Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies, 1(1), 117-138. doi: 10.22059/jrels.2015.54555
Oppenheim, L. (1912). International Law: A Treatise, vol.I (Peace), London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Papanicolopulu, I. (2018). International Law and the Protection of People at Sea. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Rydberg, A., Fitzmaurice, M., Brus, M., & Merkouris, P. (2021). Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, United States: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schrijver, N., Kuik, O.J., & Peters, P. (2013). Joint Implementation to Curb Climate Change: Legal and Economic Aspects. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stockholm Declaration (1972). U.N. Doc. A/AC.138/SC.II1/SR.2o.
Strategic Council on Foreign Relations (2019). Paris Climate Agreement, Capacities and Limitations. https://www.scfr.ir/fa/100/14899/ (Accessed 2 September 2025). [In Persian].
Trindade, A.A.C. (2020). International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium. Third Revised Edition. Netherlands: Brill.
United Nations Climate Change, The Paris Agreement (2015). https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
United National Convention on the Law of the Sea, (1982). 21 ILM 1261.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 1992), entered into force on 21 March 1994.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
Vignes, D., & Dupuy, R.J. (2023). A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea. Netherlands: Brill.
 Cases
ICJ, (2025). Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. ICJ. Advisory Opinion.
ICJ, (2010). the case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, (Argentina vs. Uruguay), Judgment.
ICJ, (1973). Nuclear Tests case, Australia v. France, ICJ Reports 99.
ICJ, (1973). Nuclear Tests case, New Zealand v. France, ICJ Reports 135.
ICJ Reports, (1996). Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 226.
ICJ, (1949). Corfu Channel Case, U.K. v. Albania, Judgement, ICJ Reports, 22.
ICJ, (1949). Reparation for Injuries Suffered in Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion.
Lake Lanoux Arbitration, (1957). France V. Spain, Award, 12 RIAA 281.
PCIJ, (1927). The S.S. Lotus case (France v. Turkey), Series A, No. 10.
PCIJ, (1923). Status of the Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion. Series B, No. 5.
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), (1928). Island of Palmas Case, Netherlands v. United States, 2 RIAA 829.
Texaco Award (1975). Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic.
Journal Of Researches Energy Law Studies
Volume 11, Issue 2
February 2026
Pages 336-315