Climate and Justice: When the Law Stands Up to Climate Collapse

Collab: Martina Goldsztein. Lawyer, specialist in Environmental and Administrative Law. Honorary lecturer at the University of Buenos Aires.

Founder of Environmental & + .

The International Court of Justice (CIJ) has just made history. In its Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, it made clear that there is no more time for inaction: environmental harm is a pressing legal issue, and States can no longer look the other way.

This is not just another academic paper or diplomatic communiqué. It is a call for international law to be activated as a tool for transformation.

1) From Political Issue to Legal Fact: Climate Change in the Courtroom:

The ICJ confirmed that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are caused by human activity and have serious cross-border effects. Words matter, and the Court’s use of terms such as “urgent and existential threat” is no coincidence: the legal dimension of climate change is inherently political.

2) Cooperate, Prevent, Act: Duties with No Room for Excuses:

From now on, failing to comply with these principles is not just irresponsible: it is illegal.

• International Cooperation: It is not a diplomatic courtesy; it is a legal obligation.

• Preventing Transboundary Harm: Uncontrolled emissions violate the principle of not causing harm to other States. GHG emissions are now formally included under this principle.

  
  

3) Island States and Displaced People: The Right to Exist:

The presumption of state continuity is reinforced for countries that may end up submerged. The principle of non-refoulement is extended to people displaced by climate-related causes. This marks a step toward recognizing the climate refugee—a key figure of the XXI century.

4) Responsibility Is No Longer Vague: It Has Names and Borders:

Climate damage is now considered an internationally wrongful act. States are responsible for the actions of both their governments and the companies under their jurisdiction. Multiple causes do not exempt any State from the obligation to repair the damage. Subsidies, lack of regulation, extractive permits—all of this may now be deemed illegal under international law.

In Argentina, this calls for a review of energy policies, fossil fuel subsidies, and environmental regulatory frameworks. It’s not just about cutting emissions—it’s about stopping the rewards for polluters.

5) Differentiated Obligations: Those Who Pollute More Must Do More:

Global North countries have enhanced responsibilities: they must reduce more, help more, and pollute less. Argentina, although not part of Annex I, must demand this internationally—but also do its part at home.

6) If There Is Harm, There Are Legal Consequences:

Any breach now triggers international legal responsibility:

• Cease the harmful conduct

• Ensure non-repetition

• Fully repair the damage caused

And yes, this paves the way for international litigation, climate lawsuits, and accountability mechanisms.

7) The Right to a Healthy Climate Is Now a Human Right:

The ICJ affirmed that the human right to a healthy environment includes the right to a stable climate. This aligns climate law with the human rights framework, opening more paths for protection and legal claims.

What Can We Do as Young Lawyers?:

• Strategic action before the Supreme Court: Use this Advisory Opinion as an interpretative standard for customary international law in national court cases, especially in lawsuits related to State responsibility for climate disasters or environmental harm.

• Lawsuits against polluting companies: Promote environmental, administrative, and constitutional actions invoking the State’s obligation to oversee and sanction private actors under its jurisdiction, in line with this opinion.

• Amicus curiae briefs in environmental cases: File legal opinions based on this Advisory Opinion to reinforce that climate change has specific legal consequences and cannot be ignored in local judicial processes.

• Legal review of fossil fuel subsidies and licenses: Pursue constitutional challenges or injunctions questioning the granting of subsidies or licenses for projects that violate the principle of non-transboundary harm or the right to a healthy environment.

Law is not neutral in the face of Climate Change. The ICJ is giving legal structure to what youth and communities have been denouncing for years. So the question isn’t whether the law can act in the face of climate collapse—the question is: What are we going to do about it? #ForABetterWorld.