The COSIS-initiated ITLOS advisory hearings created a precedent that is crucial, as they have interpreted the state obligations in UNCLOS regarding transboundary environmental damage caused by climate change and specifically the cross-border effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the marine environment. UNCLOS Article 194 states that states should take all the necessary steps, as per their capabilities, to prevent, reduce and manage the environmental pollution of the sea, including the pollution inside their jurisdiction that can spread to other states or regions under their control. In the recent opinion of the ITLOS, these obligations are clearly applied to the spread of pollution by transboundary harm, to which the prevention of actual damage is not enough, but also to the anticipation and prevention of potential damage prior to its emergence.
This obligation is more extreme than the principles of the Stockholm and Rio Declarations, because UNCLOS imposes proactive obligations: states have to act where harm is only probable, and not only after it has been achieved. The Tribunal confirms that states are obliged to make sure that their endeavours do not lead to the ecological damage of other countries or other world seas because the emission of fossil fuels occurs through air and oceanic routes. This method is indicative of a precautionary legal measure, which underlines the primary environmental law principle of avoiding transboundary pollution, and holds states responsible in instances where their policies or actions jeopardise biodiversity and human rights, and may cause vulnerable coastal and island societies to be exposed to cross-border climate effects.
Keywords: Intersection, Climate change, United Nations Convention, Transboundary Harm, Rio Declaration, Stockholm Declaration.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Climate Change caused by Human beings endangers the life of the Oceans
Anthropogenic climate change is threatening the oceans, that is a habitat for life on Earth. The effects that are the most noticeable include warming, acidification, and sea level rise, which not only pose a threat to the survival and biodiversity of marine life but also jeopardise the lives of coastal and island communities on the planet. These are environmental changes that cross boundaries and, hence, a transboundary environmental loss that defies legal orders that are present. Climate change in the world is an existential and transboundary threat to the integrity of the world’s oceans, which is manifested in the degradation of ecosystems and even the displacement of whole communities. This crisis refers to the need to establish a clear distinction between international legal responsibility and State accountability.
1.2 Advisory Opinion of the ITLOS: The Redefinitions of the Environmental and Maritime Law
ITLOS issued a rare kind of advisory opinion in May 2024, reconsidering the outlines of international environmental and maritime law in the future. In the former scenario, the international tribunal clearly expressed the obligations of the states to the UNCLOS to align the transboundary damage to the oceans occasioned by climate change. Such perception has taken the law of the sea to a new stage of control that is not directly connected to the traditional maritime control, but rather deeply rooted in modern demands of climatic and environmental control, and such is a manifestation of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the UNCLOS and international climate control tools such as the Paris Agreement.
1.3 UNCLOS: The Ocean Constitution and its Environment Mandate
The UNCLOS, which was adopted in 1982, is commonly referred to as the constitution of the oceans since it provides the fundamental framework for how the seas of the world will be managed and taken care of. Part XII of this Convention is a very crucial one because it is concerned with protecting and conserving the marine environment. It has binding obligations on states in their own interest as well as on behalf of the international community in general, i.e. states have a duty erga omnes to make sure that oceans are left clean and free of pollution and other perilous practices.
1.4 High Standards of State Due Diligence and Article 194(1)
One of the key provisions of this framework is Article 194(1) that obligates the states to adopt every measure that is necessary to avert, mitigate, and manage any type of marine pollution. International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has construed this obligation to imply that the high standard of due diligence should be adopted by states. Such a standard is not only forward-looking as it prevents harm before it happens, but is also backwards-looking in that it provides remedies in case harm has already occurred. The legal problem of primary interest to ITLOS was whether the emission of greenhouse gases within the sovereign territory of a state or a state that causes environmental pollutants to the oceans, but whose damaging impacts extend internationally, could have international responsibility.
ITLOS, in its advisory opinion, provided a revolutionary interpretation of Article 1(4) of UNCLOS, which stipulates what constitutes pollution of the marine environment. The Tribunal stated that human-made greenhouse gas emissions, after being captured by the oceans, should be considered as marine pollution. This appreciation is transformative in the sense that it uses the full body of environmental requirements of Part XII of UNCLOS in relation to climate change. It has the connotation that issues such as warming of the oceans, acidity and depletion of oxygen are not scientific facts but a legalised negative impact of human actions. Another matter that the Tribunal explained is the standard of conduct that the states should operate. It emphasised the role of the states that should practice high due diligence in their interactions with greenhouse emissions, and their obligation is strongly connected with the precautionary principle of international environmental law. The duty is preventive in quality, and this implies that states will have to behave prior to the damage being done. As an illustration, they have the duty of taking proactive measures to reduce the likely damage, particularly since even the scientific community agrees that climate change is a reality. The states also need to base their decisions on the available scientific evidence, which is the best, and constantly revise their policies as science progresses. Any inability to comply with this commitment constitutes a violation of international law, and it paves the way to the accountability of the state to transboundary damages as a result of climate change.
This is a significant change in international law. Previous tools, such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and the 1992 Rio Declaration, were more concerned with responsibility once the damage had been done to the environment. However, ITLOS went a step further by making the law progressive through obligatory, preventive adherence by states; thus, it is clear that it is no longer appropriate to wait until it is too late.
2. THE PRINCIPLE OF TRANSBOUNDARY HARM AND THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Among the most significant international environmental law rules is the principle that states must not cause transboundary harm. It derives from the Latin sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, meaning use your property in a manner that you do not harm someone. This concept has been verified in multiple landmark situations, as well as international proclamations. Indicatively, the well-known Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938/41) between the United States and Canada concluded that no state can exercise its territory to inflict severe harm on another state. On the same note, Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration (1972) and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration (1992) affirmed that states have the sovereign right to use their resources, but states have a role to play by ensuring they do not cause environmental damage outside their territories.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also contributed significantly towards the development of this principle. The Court in the case of Corfu Channel (1949) pointed out that a state should not deliberately allow its territory to be used in a manner that is detrimental to other states. According to the Pulp Mills case (2010), the ICJ reiterated that states are under the responsibility of due diligence in order to ensure that the transboundary harm is significant, and that this responsibility includes the conduct of environmental impact assessment and adequate monitoring. Due to these changes, the principle of transboundary harm has now become customary international law and is being regarded more as an obligation, which binds all states irrespective of any particular commitments on a treaty basis.
The most important aspect of this principle is the due diligence standard. It allows states not to be always liable for all cross-border damages; however, states must apply maximum care to avoid risks that can be predicted. Proper regulation of activities that may be harmful, vigilance and preventive measures is part of due diligence. The ICJ in Pulp Mills emphasised the fact that the task of this duty includes pre-evaluation of the environmental impact of the project and the implementation of the ongoing monitoring of its consequences.
The ITLOS advisory opinion expands this idea of due diligence, but puts it into an even more intensive implementation. Since climate change is a worldwide and existential issue, the Tribunal required a higher degree of concern among states in handling greenhouse gas emissions. Through this, ITLOS incorporated the principle of transboundary harm along with the UNCLOS obligations to establish a new standard in the area of state responsibility in environmental law.
3. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ADVISORY OPINION
The case that was presented to the ITLOS by the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS) was based on two main and quite interrelated legal issues. Collectively, these questions were the main focus of the Tribunal advisory opinion on climate change under UNCLOS.
First Legal Question: Obligations under UNCLOS: Current State
The initial question required the Tribunal to provide a clearance of the current requirements of states under UNCLOS to safeguard the marine environment against the impacts of climate change. Notably, the Tribunal never paid much attention to the past liabilities or compensation but rather to the nature of current responsibilities. In this way, it enhanced the point that UNCLOS is a living tool, one that should change dynamically based on the latest scientific understanding and global environmental changes. In its answer, ITLOS stated that a state duty is not a choice one. Instead, they are obligations that should be performed with the help of strict due diligence. This benchmark makes the states take proactive measures, effective ones, and science-based ones nationally. The UNCLOS specifically types 207 and 213 to ensure that states create and implement rules that regulate marine pollution, especially that of land-based pollution. As the greenhouse gas emissions are mainly on land and the harmful effects are in the ocean, these articles are directly related to the harm of climate change.
Second Legal Question: Part XII under the Marine Environment Protection.
The second question involved ITLOS having to find meaning to the protection and preservation of the marine environment within Part XII of UNCLOS, particularly in a climate change environment. In UNCLOS, article 1(4) has a broad definition of pollution of the marine environment, which includes the introduction of substances that could cause harm. ITLOS confirmed that the definition ought to be read in context and in general terms to incorporate modern-day problems like climate change.
The Tribunal acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and, consequently, in the ocean are directly associated with the most obvious implications of climate change: warming of oceans, acidification, and rising sea level. Therefore, these effects caused by the climate squarely fall under marine pollution under the UNCLOS. Also, ITLOS emphasised the fact that under Article 194(5), there is a responsibility to conserve vulnerable and delicate marine environments. This definition combines the aspects of biodiversity conservation and climate change control, demonstrating that states are not only responsible for limiting pollution but also for protecting ecosystems, particularly endangered by climate change. Connection between the Two Legal Questions. The two legal questions are closely connected, though they are not framed directly. The elucidation of existing state obligations to avoid climate damage (first question) cannot be detached in terms of the interpretation of marine environment protection under Part XII (second question). They both conclude that greenhouse gas emissions should be considered a type of marine pollution and that pre-emptive, precautionary actions should be legally enforced to avoid damage by states.
4. UNCLOS AND THE PARIS AGREEMENT: COMPLEMENTATION, NOT SUSPENSION
One of the recurrent arguments being advanced by various States was that the Paris Agreement of 2015, being the treaty that is particularly devoted to the issue of climate change, should act as the lex specialis and, thus, override the very framework of UNCLOS when dealing with the issue of climate-related obligations. ITLOS vehemently denounced this claim and made it clear that the connection between the two instruments is not a superiority relationship but a complementary one. Both of them have a particular normative scope and purpose, which should be interpreted collectively in accordance with the principle of systemic integration that is expressed in Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The Tribunal highlighted the differences in the legal structures of both regimes. The Paris Agreement operates mainly by use of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which are procedurally binding and substantially voluntary, and leaves the States much room on whether to be ambitious and implement their mitigation targets. In comparison, UNCLOS – specifically, Article 194 – puts in place a categorical obligation on States to do all possible actions to prevent, and regulate marine pollution, which specifically includes greenhouse gas emissions. This is a mandatory obligation which has been operationalised by the due diligence and precautionary standards, which are the cornerstone of Part XII of the Convention. To maintain the normative binding content of UNCLOS, it was therefore necessary to reject the lex specialis argument. In the event that the Paris Agreement was overriding, then the States could use the voluntary and minimalist nature of their NDCs as a barrier to the liability of failure to take sufficient action to reduce marine pollution. This was supported by the ruling of ITLOS, which requested that the Paris Agreement cannot be instrumentalised to water down the existing obligations under UNCLOS, insisting instead that it must be harmonised and not displaced. Rather, the two regimes should be read in sync with one another, where the Paris Agreement enhances the progressive political aspiration, whereas UNCLOS attaches duties that are legally binding in nature. This clarification of doctrines has great jurisprudential implications. It makes UNCLOS a strong legal tool that can bring the climate policies of States under the scrutiny of the courts on the instrument of due diligence as opposed to the fundamentally political review framework of the Paris regime. By doing this, the Tribunal reinforced the normative framework of international environmental law, which ensures that climate change mitigation cannot be immunised against the binding duties of ensuring the protection and conservation of the marine environment. The ruling thus fosters the doctrine of conformity across the regimes and enhances the preeminence of UNCLOS to manage the protection of the marine environment in the context of climate change.
5. THE INTERSECTION OF UNCLOS AND INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE LAW
The cross-section of UNCLOS and International Climate Law. 4.1. UNCLOS and the Paris: No Scenario of Lex Specialis. One of the main arguments of the proceedings was that the Paris Agreement (2015), being a more specific treaty on climate change, should be regarded as lex specialis and hence overrule the less specific duties provided in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982). The Tribunal strongly disapproved of this stand by stating that the two instruments illustrate the difference in legal regimes and are complementary and not competing. The Paris Agreement is defined by its focus on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in Article 4, where states have the freedom with regard to carbon emission reduction targets. Although these commitments are of considerable importance in the international climate regime, they are not legally obligatory as far as the quantitative reductions that need to be made. Conversely, the obligations of UNCLOS are very explicit: Articles 192 and 194(1) impose a general duty on states to protect and preserve the marine environment, and, under Article 207, states have the general obligation to prevent, reduce, and control the pollution of the marine environment (including land-based sources of pollution such as greenhouse gas emissions). The Tribunal made this distinction to stress that adherence to the Paris Agreement does not suffice to relieve the obligations of a state under the UNCLOS. The latter is, on the contrary, more strict, result-oriented and requires national action to prevent marine pollution. The jurisprudential position is of great importance, as it excludes the option of the states using the flexibility based in Paris as a defence against evading the accountability based on UNCLOS. Practically, ITLOS affirmed that climate treaties have no displacement effect on UNCLOS, but work together, so that states have more powerful obligations to protect the ocean, in the context of being part of the cooperative system of the Paris Agreement. Such an interpretation is in line with the general principle of treaty law in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT, 1969) in Article 30,which states that subsequent treaties do not take precedence over prior ones unless otherwise stated by the parties. The fact that neither UNCLOS nor the Paris Agreement includes the elements of subordination of one by the other, supports the argument of the Tribunal, which promotes the two-sided use. This means that the safeguarding of the marine environment against the effects of climate change cannot be watered down by having to resort to the more compromise-based, politically negotiated system of the Paris Agreement.
6. MAKING UNCLOS AND PARIS AGREEMENT COMPLEMENTARY REGIMES
Though declining to adopt the lex specialis argument, the Tribunal highlighted that UNCLOS and the Paris Agreement should not be interpreted in isolation but should be interpreted as complementary tools to one another within the larger context of environmental governance in the international system. The use of the interpretation accesses a systemic approach of interpretation under Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT, 1969), which demands that the interpretation of treaties be made in the reflection of any applicable rules of international law in the relations between the parties. The UNCLOS provides binding and enforceable obligations to promote and conserve the maritime environment (Article 192) and to take actions against all types of marine pollution (Articles 194212). These clauses give the normative foundation to state action in connection with marine protection and the duty to control land-based pollution sources like greenhouse gas emissions (Articles 207 and 213). Conversely, the Paris Agreement also plays its role, which is the operationalisation of cooperative and facilitative mechanisms: with NDCs (Article 4), the Global Stocktake (Article 14) and climate finance (Article 9). Though not binding in quantitative terms, these mechanisms offer states systematic processes of seeking collective climate mitigation, and thus supplement the obligations of UNCLOS. This is the strategy of the Tribunal that fills the perceived gap between hard-law (UNCLOS) and soft-law (Paris Agreement) flexibility. Through this, it prevents a piecemeal application of international law and gives coherence to regimes, an interpretive approach, which has long been advocated by the International Law Commission in order to avert the possibility of conflict in overlapping regimes of treaties. In addition, this second reading supports climate justice: whereby the Paris Agreement provides states with the freedom to determine their emissions reduction targets, UNCLOS asserts that this freedom should not come at the cost of controlling marine environmental quality or the entitlement of climate-vulnerable states, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS). In this regard, the Tribunal affirmed that the obligation of the Paris Agreement operates as a complement and not a dilution of UNCLOS duties that establishes a two-tier structure of action on climate change cooperation alongside a bind of marine protection. Overall, ITLOS has made it clear that UNCLOS gives marine environmental protection the binding legal bottom and the Paris Agreement gives the global climate ambition the political and cooperative upper limit. They are able to read together as one so as to set up a comprehensive system of governance which is capable of addressing the complexity of interrelations of climate change and the protection of the ocean.
CONCLUSION: A TURNING POINT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change is a landmark development that recasts the interrelationship between international environmental law and the law of the sea. By applying an interpretative innovation to UNCLOS, a treaty concluded more than 40 years ago, the Tribunal has demonstrated that legal instruments are dynamic “living instruments” that are able to evolve to address current and unexpected challenges.
Far from being symbolic, this view is a landmark legal step, setting out clear, well-established principles to inform state action and deepening the legal basis for climate regulation. It underscores states’ positive, science-based duty to lower greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledging such emissions as a type of marine pollution. Through providing this authoritative view of the law, ITLOS gives a voice to vulnerable states and civil society forces to push for more aggressive climate action and to hold governments and corporations to account for the harm visited on the oceans. The impact of the opinion on other international tribunals and national legal regimes is likely to be vast, marking a new era in which international law becomes a key driver of the global response to the climate crisis.
REFERENCES:
1. United Nations (2023). How Is Climate Change Impacting the World’s Ocean. United Nations. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/ocean-impacts.
2. He, Q. and Silliman, B.R. (2019). Climate Change, Human Impacts, and Coastal Ecosystems in the Anthropocene. Current Biology, [online] 29(19), pp.R1021–R1035. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.042.
3. Asil.org. (2025). The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: A Brief Review | ASIL. [online] Available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/29/issue/5.
4. Elena (2024). ITLOS Clarifies State Obligations Under UNCLOS in Relation to Climate Change. [online] SDG Knowledge Hub. Available at: https://sdg.iisd.org/news/itlos-clarifies-state-obligations-under-unclos-in-relation-to-climate-change/.
5. International Maritime Organization (2019). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. [online] www.imo.org. Available at: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Legal/Pages/UnitedNationsConventionOnTheLawOfTheSea.aspx
6. Klerk, B.E. (2025). The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change: Revisiting the relationship between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Paris Agreement. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12588.
7. EJIL: Talk! (2024). ‘Stringent Due Diligence’, Duties of Cooperation and Assistance to Climate Vulnerable States, and the Selective Integration of External Rules in the ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law. [online] Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/stringent-due-diligence-duties-of-cooperation-and-assistance-to-climate-vulnerable-states-and-the-selective-integration-of-external-rules-in-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-inte/
8. Nishant Sirohi (2025). Redefining Horizons: ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Obligations. [online] orfonline.org. Available at: https://www.orfonline.org/research/redefining-horizons-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-obligations [Accessed 3 Oct. 2025].
9. Hicks, C. (2023). INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION OF SMALL ISLAND STATES ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION SUBMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL) (CASE NO. 31) AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF OPPORTUNITY GREEN. [online] Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/31/written_statements/4/C31-WS-4-4-Opportunity_Green.pdf.
10. EJIL: Talk! (2024). The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Selected Issues of Treaty Interpretation. [online] Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-selected-issues-of-treaty-interpretation/.
11. Clyde (2024). Landmark ITLOS legal opinion – States must protect oceans and marine biodiversity from GHG emissions. [online] Clydeco.com. Available at: https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2024/06/landmark-itlos-legal-opinion-states-must-prote-1
12. Voigt, C. and Voigt, C. (2025). ‘Doing the utmost’: Due diligence as the standard of conduct in international climate law – Climate Law Blog. [online] Climate Law Blog. Available at: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/09/03/doing-the-utmost-due-diligence-as-the-standard-of-conduct-in-international-climate-law/ [Accessed 3 Oct. 2025].
13. Tsang, V. (2021). Columbia Law School Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Scholarship Archive Establishing State Responsibility in Mitigating Climate Change Establishing State Responsibility in Mitigating Climate Change under Customary International Law under Customary International Law. [online] Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=llm_essays_theses.
14. Greene, F. (2020). International Environment Greene, F. (2020). International Environmental Law: History and milestones. [online] Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Available at: https://aida-americas.org/en/blog/international-environmental-law-history-and-milestones.
15. Ryngaert, C.M.J. |Info:Eu-Repo/Dai/Nl/287744477, Recht, I., En, I. and En, A. (n.d.). Horizontal Complementarity.
16. Miller, R. (n.d.). PANDEMIC AS TRANSBOUNDARY HARM: LESSONS FROM THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION. [online] Available at: https://www.nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Article1.pdf.
17. International Court of Justice (1949). Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania). [online] www.icj-cij.org. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/1.
18. International Court of Justice (2010). Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). [online] www.icj-cij.org. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/135.
19. Sovereignty vs. trans-boundary environmental harm: The evolving International law obligations and the Sethusamuduram Ship Channel Project. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/mendis_0607_sri_lanka.pdf.
20. Annex II Due Diligence in International Law by Penelope Ridings. (n.d.). Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2024/english/annex2.pdf.
21. www.asil.org. (n.d.). Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay: The International Court of Justice Recognizes Environmental Impact Assessment as a Duty under International Law | ASIL. [online] Available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/14/issue/9/pulp-mills-river-uruguay-international-court-justice-recognizes.
22. Asil.org. (2025). The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: A Brief Review | ASIL. [online] Available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/29/issue/5.
23. Biicl.org. (2024). A Commentary on ITLOS’ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://www.biicl.org/blog/77/a-commentary-on-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change.
24. Fietta. (2024). ITLOS delivers unanimous advisory opinion on obligations of UNCLOS Parties to confront climate change. [online] Available at: https://www.fiettalaw.com/pil_news/3101/ [Accessed 3 Oct. 2025].
25. Irini Papanicolopulu (2023). The climate change advisory opinion request at the ITLOS – QIL QDI. [online] QIL QDI. Available at: https://www.qil-qdi.org/the-climate-change-advisory-opinion-request-at-the-itlos/.
26. Clyde (2024). Landmark ITLOS legal opinion – States must protect oceans and marine biodiversity from GHG emissions. [online] Clydeco.com. Available at: https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2024/06/landmark-itlos-legal-opinion-states-must-prote-1.
27. Tigre, M. and Silverman-Roati, K. (2023). Columbia Law School Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Scholarship Archive. [online] Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=sabin_climate_change
28. Irini Papanicolopulu (2023). The climate change advisory opinion request at the ITLOS – QIL QDI. [online] QIL QDI. Available at: https://www.qil-qdi.org/the-climate-change-advisory-opinion-request-at-the-itlos/.
29. Shivanna, K.R. (2022). Climate Change and Its Impact on Biodiversity and Human Welfare. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, [online] 88(2), pp.160–171. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00073-6.
30. Press Release TRIBUNAL DELIVERS UNANIMOUS ADVISORY OPINION IN CASE NO. 31 REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY THE COMMISSION OF SMALL ISLAND STATES ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. (2024). Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_350_EN.pdf.
31. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, Viñuales, J.E. and Viñuales, J.E. (2024). More than a Sink: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and State Responsibility – Climate Law Blog. [online] Climate Law Blog. Available at: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2024/06/07/more-than-a-sink-the-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-and-state-responsibility/.
32. ocean-climate.org. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.ocean-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/international-law-161024_ScientificNotes_Oct2016_BD_ppp-14.pdf.
33. Asil.org. (2025). The ICJ’s Opinion on Climate Change: Pushing the Boundaries of International Law | ASIL. [online] Available at: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/29/issue/13 [Accessed 3 Oct. 2025].
34. Klerk, B. (n.d.). Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://site.uit.no/nclos/wp-content/uploads/sites/179/2024/08/Bas-NCLOS-blog-2.pdf.
35. Centre for Climate Engagement. (n.d.). Public International Law and Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://climatehughes.org/law-and-climate-atlas/public-international-law-and-climate-change/.
36. Nguyen, L.N. (2021). Expanding the Environmental Regulatory Scope of UNCLOS Through the Rule of Reference: Potentials and Limits. Ocean Development & International Law, 52(4), pp.419–444. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2021.2011509.
37. Keating-Bitonti, C. (2025). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Living Resources Provisions. [online] Congress.gov. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47744.
38. www.noaa.gov. (2018). Land-Based Sources of Marine Pollution. [online] Available at: https://www.noaa.gov/gc-international-section/land-based-sources-of-marine-pollution.
39. Zhu, M., Chaturvedi, V., Clarke, L., Hochstetler, K., Hultman, N., Vogt-Schilb, A. and Wang, P. (2023). Bridging the global stocktake gap of climate mitigation: A framework to measure political economy progress. One Earth, [online] 6(9), pp.1104–1130. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.08.015.
40. Dagnet, Y., Cogswell, N., Northrop, E., Höhne, N., Thwaites, J., Elliott, C., Bird, N., Kirbyshire, A., Oberthür, S., Rocha, M., Levin, K. and Barata, P. (n.d.). SETTING THE PARIS AGREEMENT IN MOTION: KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES. [online] Available at: https://newclimate.org/sites/default/files/2018/08/PACT-Setting-the-Paris-Agreement-in-Motion-Key-Requirements-for-the-Implementing-Guidelines.pdf.
41. Srouji, J., Warszawski, N. and Roeyer, H. (2022). Explaining the First ‘Global Stocktake’ of Climate Action. www.wri.org. [online] Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/explaining-global-stocktake-paris-agreement.
42. SchäliJ. (2022). The mitigation of marine plastic pollution in international law: facts, policy, and legal implications. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff. Klerk, B. (n.d.). Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://site.uit.no/nclos/wp-content/uploads/sites/179/2024/08/Bas-NCLOS-blog-2.pdf.
43. Thin, S. (2025). Playing Fast and Loose with Article 31(3)(c) VCLT: Lessons on Systemic Integration from the ITLOS Climate Change Opinion. Netherlands International Law Review, 72(1), pp.31–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-025-00274-y.
44. Klerk, B.E. (2025). The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change: Revisiting the relationship between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Paris Agreement. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12588.
45. Biicl.org. (2024). A Commentary on ITLOS’ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://www.biicl.org/blog/77/a-commentary-on-itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change.
46. The Equation. (2025). Five Reasons Why the ICJ Climate Advisory Opinion Matters. [online] Available at: https://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/.
47. Afzal, J. and Ahmad, I. (2025). The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Marine Pollution: Some Reflections. Environmental Policy and Law. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/18785395251353059.
