Untangling the Gordian knot: differentiation in the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change

Journal article

This essay analyses the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Climate Change to determine the extent to which the Court resolves contestations over the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the differentiation among States that flows from it. It argues that the Court, in seeking to untangle the Gordian knot of differentiation, resolves some outstanding issues and sidesteps others. Where it does resolve long-standing disputes, as for instance over the salience of historical responsibility for GHG emissions, the Court strengthens the normative framework of international climate change law. However, applying this strengthened normative framework will be challenging given the chasm between this framework and the structural (in)ability of the existing legal institutions to operationalize it.

Authors: Rajamani, L

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Journal: Journal of Environmental Law
• Article number: eqag012
• Publication date: 2026-05-14
• DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqag012
• EISSN: 1464-374X
• ISSN: 0952-8873
• Language: English
• Keywords: advisory opinion; International Court of Justice; principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; climate change