“While all states are under strict obligations to take measures to prevent harm from climate change, the Opinion articulates that the obligations of high emitters are especially stringent and demanding, more so than those of other states. Since high emitters have contributed most to the problem and are typically in the best position to take effective action, they are expected to do more than others.”

“I was not surprised that the Court did not accept the argument that only the Paris Agreement applies, pushing aside other international legal instruments. What I found especially encouraging, though, was the level of detail the Court provided in its analysis of the Paris Agreement’s obligations. Overall, the Opinion marks a significant step forward in legally explaining the responsibilities of countries under international climate law.”

“In affirming that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights, the Court provides a basis for claiming it as an inherent right. While this has already been established in the Inter-American system, no such right has been established at the European Court of Human Rights. It will be interesting to see how the European Court deals with this development in future cases.”

“By weaving together treaty law, custom, principles such as common but differentiated responsibilities, and human rights norms, the Court demonstrates that international law already contains a coherent, mutually reinforcing framework for addressing the climate crisis. The Opinion shows that multilateral rules can evolve and guide collective action. Their actual impact will now be tested by the willingness of countries to implement the due diligence and co‑operation duties the Court has so clearly articulated, and the actions taken in response to apparent breaches.”