WYCJ Symposium: Lessons from ICJ Advisory Opinions

Introduction

This article explores how previous advisory opinions and cases before the International Court of Justice can guide the campaign by World’s Youth for Climate Justice to obtain an advisory opinion on states’ obligations regarding climate change and the rights of present and future generations.

Under Article 65 of the ICJ Statute, the Court may issue advisory opinions on legal questions referred by authorised UN bodies and agencies. WYCJ’s strategy relied on support from Vanuatu through the United Nations General Assembly.

The article studies three precedents:

1. The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion

2. The 2014 Whaling in the Antarctic case

3. Palau and Marshall Islands efforts to seek a climate-related advisory opinion

These examples are used to show why an ICJ opinion on climate change could be influential.

The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996)

The article identifies the 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion as especially important for environmental law.

In that opinion, the ICJ famously described the environment as:

• the living space of human beings

• part of quality of life

• linked to health

• relevant to future generations

This is presented as an early and powerful recognition of intergenerational equity.

The Court also recognised obligations to prevent transboundary environmental harm and to consider environmental factors before acting.

According to the article, this reasoning helped shape later environmental legal concepts such as environmental impact assessments.

Lessons for Climate Change

The author suggests a climate advisory opinion could have similar effects:

• strengthen legal norms

• influence state behaviour

• raise public awareness

• reinforce environmental justice movements

The article also stresses that the nuclear weapons campaign succeeded only after years of mobilisation by civil society, indigenous groups, and international organisations.

That is used as a model for WYCJ’s youth-led activism.

Whaling in the Antarctic (2014)

The second example is the contentious case of Whaling in the Antarctic between Australia and Japan.

The significance of this case, according to the article, is that the ICJ showed it can engage with complex scientific evidence.

The Court had to interpret whether Japan’s whaling programme qualified as scientific research under the relevant treaty.

The author argues this demonstrates that the ICJ is capable of:

• evaluating expert evidence

• interpreting scientific concepts legally

• resolving disputes involving technical environmental issues

Lessons for Climate Change

Because climate litigation depends heavily on scientific evidence, especially Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, the Whaling case suggests the Court could meaningfully assess climate science in an advisory opinion.

Palau and Marshall Islands Climate Initiative

The article next discusses efforts by Palau and Marshall Islands in 2011 to pursue an ICJ advisory opinion on climate-related transboundary harm.

Their proposed question focused on whether states must ensure greenhouse gas emissions under their control do not cause serious damage to other states.

Although the initiative did not reach the final UNGA stage, the author says it was highly influential because it:

• inspired later campaigns

• centred the voice of small island states

• framed climate change as an issue of legal responsibility

• highlighted injustice faced by low-emitting vulnerable nations

Importance of Asking the Right Question

A major lesson drawn from Palau’s attempt is that success depends on carefully drafting the legal question submitted to the ICJ.

The author argues Palau’s wording may have left unresolved issues around:

• causation

• attribution of emissions

• standards of responsibility

Therefore, WYCJ should ensure any future request is precise, strategic, and legally workable.

Broader Message About Youth Advocacy

The article repeatedly emphasises that youth movements cannot directly request advisory opinions themselves. Only authorised bodies like the UNGA can do so.

This means WYCJ’s task is political and diplomatic mobilisation:

• persuading governments

• building global awareness

• connecting climate change with human rights

• generating international momentum

The campaign is portrayed as part of a broader movement in which young people seek accountability from governments for harms affecting future generations.

Conclusion

The article concludes that past ICJ cases provide three key lessons for climate justice advocates:

1. Advisory opinions can shape international law even when non-binding.

2. The ICJ can address scientific complexity, making climate issues suitable for judicial clarification.

3. Success requires strong mobilisation and careful legal framing.

For the author, a climate advisory opinion could become a landmark statement on states’ duties to protect present and future generations from climate harm.

Himmat Bakshi was studying Environmental Studies at O.P. Jindal Global University and worked with World’s Youth for Climate Justice.