The ICJ and Environmental Law

o Working of the Court:

First reading for the class:
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/how-the-court-works = official website of the ICJ  How
the Court Works
Questions to consider for the class: What are the two types of cases/proceedings that
can be brought in front of the Court? What are the legal proceedings to follow for
each type and who is entitled to bring those proceedings to the Court?

o ICJ’s three major decisions on international environmental law:

 First case: Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), 1997

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/92 = read Overview of the case

+ Press release 1997/10 document https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-
related/92/092-19970925-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf (PDF)

 Second case: Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 2010

Read Overview of the case: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/135

Common point in those two cases is the breach/violation of an agreement/treaty between

the two opposing states regarding the administration of their common river  why is that
fact relevant for the rulings of the Court? (Court’s jurisdiction possible because of the
provisions of the treaties/statutes btw the countries).

 Third case: Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand

intervening), 2010

Read Overview of case: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/148

+ Press release PDF: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/148/15953.pdf

Question: what is the different binding instrument/tool used in this case by Australia
(different than in the two previous cases)? No bilateral agreement/treaty btw Australia and
Japan but international convention instead.
How can New Zealand be intervening in this case? As a third party (observer?) to the case?

Thinking points on the three cases considered:

  What do these three cases tell us about the ICJ’s capacity or legitimacy in hearing
environmental cases?
 What are the problems/challenges the court faces?
 How does the court use treaty interpretation to deal with environmental questions?
 Do we need an international court specialized in environmental law cases?

Article on a most recent environmental case decided by the ICJ regarding a dispute between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua involving a canal built by Nicaragua:
https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/201804/icj-renders-first-
environmental-compensation-decision-summary-judgment

Question: What new method of evaluating the environmental damages inflicted on the
Costa Rican side by Nicaragua was used by the Court in this case?

Advisory opinion of 1996 from the ICJ: Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
Read Overview: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95

Opening question/discussion (end of class):

Some environmentalists advocate for an advisory opinion from the ICJ about the states’
obligations with regard to climate change. This subject is debated among environmental
advocates because some believe an advisory opinion would be counter-productive for the
environmental cause as the ICJ would render a negative opinion on states’ obligations. What
do you think about the effectiveness of an advisory opinion from the ICJ on climate change
and states’ responsibility as this regard?