In the latest issue of the Austrian Review of International and European Law Online, Natascha Gojkovic, university assistant at the Department for International Law and International Relations, conducts a comparative study of advisory opinion proceedings concerning states’ obligations to combat climate change. The article examines the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), comparing their jurisdiction, procedural rules, and legal foundations.
The focus is on the question of why both courts, despite sharing a common goal, pursue different institutional and procedural approaches. The article demonstrates that, in particular, ITLOS’s advisory jurisdiction continues to raise significant legal controversies, while the ICJ operates on a much more solid foundation. At the same time, the article places recent developments in international climate law within a broader context and highlights how advisory opinion proceedings are increasingly being used to clarify obligations under international law regarding global issues of the future.
The article can be accessed here: Austrian Review of International and European Law Online 29 (2024), p. 69 ff.