Motion 141

The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion was requested by the UN General Assembly (Res. 77/276) and following months of deliberations, and the public hearing of statements from States and International Organisations, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the ICJ Advisory Opinion was delivered on 23 July 2025. Responding to the Advisory Opinion is urgent, and none of the States or other parties before the court such as IUCN, knew when the Advisory Opinion would be given, or what rulings it would present. [ICJ Press Release: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf]. This circumstance is exactly what Rule 52 was intended to address.

The Court found that States have a legal obligation under international law to act with a stringent level of due diligence and limit global warming to 1.5°C, marking a landmark moment in international environmental law and climate justice. This legal duty stems not only from the Paris Agreement, but also from human rights law, the law of the sea, and the customary duty to prevent transboundary harm. It is essential that IUCN takes measures to ensure the Opinion's implementation.

The background and historic importance of the Advisory Opinion is set forth in the article by former WCEL Chair, Prof. Nicholas A. Robinson, Sage Publishing and Environmental Policy and Law “Legal Imperatives to Survive the Climate Crisis: Forethoughts on the ICJ Advisory Opinion,” Environmental Policy and Law, Special Issue 55 (6) (October 2025), published by Sage Publishing (Open Access, no fee) available at https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251380846 .

The International Court of Justice provides online copies of all submissions to the Court for public review (at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/187) including all IUCN submissions:
• IUCN´s written submission
• IUCN´s comments on submissions by other parties
• The IUCN oral statement, delivered jointly by Dr Aguilar, Prof Voigt, and Prof Sindico. (text and video)
• Written responses to questions posed by the judges