Competing Perspectives and Dialogue in Climate Change Advisory Opinions

The limited use of dispute settlement mechanisms under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement explains the recent upsurge in requests for advisory opinions on issues specific to climate change to international courts, namely the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, it is still unclear how these courts will answer the questions posed, and in particular whether they will coordinate or compete with each other. As the requesting states and bodies are well aware of this uncertainty, requesting an advisory opinion from three courts simultaneously was an ingenious (not ingenuous) strategy to clarify states' obligations to mitigate or adapt to climate change through the international judiciary. This essay assesses how the parallel jurisdiction of courts in these cases presents an opportunity to enhance states' obligations concerning climate change through requesting concurrent views on the same rules and obligations. It considers the potential for contradictory views between courts on the same obligations. Finally, the essay analyzes the extent to which these courts may compete or cooperate in their approach to the resolution of these issues.

Automated summary

The recent surge in requests for advisory opinions on climate change issues to international courts, such as the ICJ, ITLOS, and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, can be explained by the limited use of dispute settlement mechanisms under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. It is still uncertain how these courts will respond to the questions posed, but requesting opinions from three courts simultaneously is a strategic move to clarify states' obligations regarding climate change.