Summary prepared by Martin Edwini-Bonsu.
The Climate Solutions Research Collective hosted a kickoff event to launch their third year as a collective with a presentation from Dr. David Boyd, exploring how several international court advisories and opinions relate to events and responsibilities in Canada.
You can view a full recording of the event on our YouTube Channel.
Dr. Boyd is Professor of Law, Policy and Sustainability in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES). He is an environmental lawyer and internationally renowned expert on human rights and the environment.
Dr. Boyd presented on three major advisory opinions from international courts and tribunals and shared how those opinions may impact states, rights-holders, Indigenous communities, and litigation strategies going forward.
The talk traced how rulings from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), along with the UN’s recognition of a right to a healthy environment, reshape what counts as a lawful national climate strategy.
He argued that the long-standing idea that governments have broad “discretion” to set climate policy is no longer an accurate description of the law: when treaty obligations (like the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement) are read alongside human-rights law, the law of the sea, customary international law and general principles, courts are now articulating concrete state duties on mitigation, adaptation, protection of vulnerable groups, transparency, and ecosystem restoration to protect the environment.
ITLOS: Ocean and Government Duties
Dr. Boyd summarized the ITLOS advisory opinion that explicitly links greenhouse-gas emissions to ocean harms (warming, acidification, deoxygenation) and finds that the law of the sea creates duties for states to prevent and remedy such harms to marine ecosystems. This anchors ocean protection directly to emissions control obligations and expands the legal pathways by which coastal and island states can press for meaningful mitigation.
Inter-American Court: A rights-based framing
The Inter-American Court’s advisory opinion was presented as a major rights-based development. The Court framed climate impacts as violations of core human rights (life, health, food, water, children’s rights, Indigenous rights and the right to a healthy environment) and set out detailed state obligations on mitigation, adaptation, access to information, and the regulation and enforcement of private actors. Importantly, the Court tied protection and restoration of ecosystems to states’ human-rights duties.
ICJ advisory opinion & the Pacific youth campaign
Dr. Boyd explained how the ICJ advisory opinion came about, highlighting the remarkable role of Pacific youth. Students at the University of the South Pacific, working with groups like World Youth for Climate Justice, launched a grassroots campaign that built momentum across the Pacific Islands. Their efforts persuaded governments to take the idea to the United Nations, where the General Assembly ultimately passed a resolution requesting the ICJ’s opinion. In response, the Court reviewed the best available climate science and affirmed that states have specific, legally binding duties to address climate change — and that failing to meet these duties can carry international legal consequences.
Remedies & Legal Consequences the Courts Identified
Across the opinions, courts identified remedies available under international law: (1) performance (e.g., requiring stronger nationally determined contributions and policies), (2) cessation and non-repetition (changing laws or stopping harmful activities), and (3) reparations/restoration (rebuilding ecosystems, compensating harms). Notably, the ICJ flagged that failures to address fossil-fuel production and subsidies may, in appropriate circumstances, amount to internationally wrongful acts.
Concrete Litigation & Policy Examples Raised in the Talk
Dr. Boyd illustrated the jurisprudence with cases and policy consequences worldwide: a youth settlement in Hawaii that produced a zero-emission transportation commitment, youth litigation in Colombia that forced action on Amazon deforestation, and several active or imminent Canadian cases (e.g., Mather v. Ontario and La Rose-style youth challenges) that are likely to invoke these international opinions. He warned that fast-tracking major fossil-fuel or high-emissions projects without robust environmental review and Indigenous consent can substantially increase legal and reputational risk.
Youth organizing, testimony and capacity building
A recurring theme was strategy: the Pacific students’ campaign, the “People’s Petition” and participatory hearings gave jurists direct testimony from frontline communities. Meanwhile, training efforts like the Negotiators Academy are equipping youth to participate effectively in negotiations and legal forums. Dr. Boyd presented these as examples of how grassroots organizing translates into diplomatic momentum and judicial influence.
Q&A highlights & memorable quotes
- “If there is one thing that I want you to remember from this presentation, it is that the courts have said clearly and unequivocally that governments have legal obligations to take bold climate action.”
- “The right to a healthy environment is foundational for the existence of humanity.”
- On fossil-fuel production and subsidies: Dr. Boyd highlighted the ICJ’s language (para. 427), noting that failure to take appropriate action on production and subsidies could, in some circumstances, amount to an internationally wrongful act.
- On the youth campaign: Dr. Boyd relayed the students’ plea that the ICJ judges “be the wayfarers of our future” — an evocative image that resonated throughout the presentation.
- During audience questions about a “safe” climate, Dr. Boyd clarified the nuance: courts treat 1.5°C as the critical, legally relevant benchmark for collective ambition (the Paris goal), but the legal duty is already triggered where states’ actions cause dangerous interference with rights. In practice, courts will assess whether NDCs and policies are compatible with staying within 1.5°C.
Practical implications & recommended next steps (for policy, legal and communications teams)
- Treat NDCs and sectoral plans as legally sensitive documents: legal review should explicitly evaluate whether targets and implementation pathways are “ambitious” and enforceable.
- Reassess approvals and fast-tracking of major energy and infrastructure projects. Projects that expand fossil-fuel production, sustain subsidies, or shortcut Indigenous consultation are now much more likely to attract litigation grounded in international law.
- Strengthen transparency, monitoring and enforcement of corporate emissions. Courts expect states to regulate, monitor and sanction major emitters.
- Prioritize meaningful Indigenous and vulnerable-community engagement. The jurisprudence emphasizes protection of rights-holders as central to lawful policy.
- Prepare legal teams to use (and defend against) international advisory opinions in domestic proceedings. Advisory opinions are not binding judgments on states, but they are highly authoritative and already being invoked in domestic litigation.
- Pay attention to civil society strategy. Youth and grassroots campaigns can generate diplomatic momentum that feeds into judicial processes. Civic strategy matters as much as legal argumentation.