09/10/2025
The link to this important story titled "How a Group of Students in the Pacific Islands Reshaped Global Climate Law" is also included in the first comment. NYT has a paywall that will likely prevent access.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/magazine/global-climate-law-students.html
Here's an excerpt:
The I.C.J.’s advisory opinions, unlike its judgments, aren’t binding; they simply express how the court believes existing law should be interpreted. In a world where many of the world’s polluters already fail to fulfill the climate commitments they’ve made, could the court ruling make a significant difference?
Legal experts describe the potential impact in various ways. Some frame the decision as possibly incremental — not transformative, but another piece of legal infrastructure on which to build arguments and agreements going forward. Vicente Paolo Yu, a longtime climate negotiator who has represented the G77, a bloc of 134 developing nations, told me that 20 years of international climate work taught him that change is often less like a lightbulb turning on and more like the slow emergence of a field of fireflies. Others argue that the court’s ruling carries greater weight than it might seem, because its power lies in the respect it commands from courts around the world. Maria Antonia Tigre, who tracks global climate-related lawsuits for Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, points out that there are already more than 3,000 such lawsuits working their way through courts around the world. These seek, for example, to hold fossil-fuel companies financially responsible for the costs of responding to the changing climate or to protect the rights of various groups, like children, that face harm from those changes. The courts hearing those arguments are likely to look to the I.C.J. opinion in making their own, binding decisions.
Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law, told me that past advisory opinions have had concrete and even rapid real-world effects, and that their influence can, in some ways, be broader than in rulings on disputes. “It is not just one set of facts affecting a few different countries,” she says. “This is interpretation of the law that can be taken forward in domestic courts, that can be taken forward in climate negotiations, that can be taken forward in policies and laws in ways that isn’t always as easy if it is a one-off precedent in a contentious case.”
They watched climate change ravage their home countries as rich, polluting nations did nothing. Then they had an idea.