02/27/2026
Last week, I had the privilege of representing the defense at the Ecocide Tribunal in Berlin, Germany, convened by The Court of Citizens of the World (CCW). The proceedings brought together jurists, scholars, advocates, scientists, and legal practitioners from across the globe to confront one of the most pressing questions of our time: whether international law imposes enforceable obligations on States to prevent environmental destruction rising to the level of ecocide.
The Tribunal was conducted in two legally connected phases: a civil proceeding addressing State responsibility under international environmental law, and a criminal inquiry examining individual and collective liability for crimes against humanity arising from environmental harm. As a People’s Tribunal, CCW seeks to create an evidence-based record of alleged international law violations, promote public awareness, and contribute to the development of international legal norms. While not formally binding, these proceedings are modeled on international criminal court standards, applying rigorous procedural safeguards, formal advocacy, and judicial deliberation.
I was tasked with defending five States accused of failing to take adequate action to mitigate climate change in accordance with international legal obligations. The case presented profound legal, scientific, and philosophical challenges. It required careful engagement with evolving doctrines of customary international law, principles of State responsibility, and contested climate science assumptions that increasingly influence global policymaking.
Despite a vigorous defense, the Tribunal ultimately held that States do possess affirmative obligations under international law to prevent environmental harm and concluded that the five accused States had failed to meet those obligations. The full verdict underscores the accelerating momentum toward codifying environmental protection as a core human rights obligation under international law.
While climate change is real and there is no credible dispute that human activity has contributed to it, significant legal and scientific questions remain unresolved.
From a legal perspective, much of the Tribunal’s reasoning rests on evolving interpretations of international environmental law and a June 2025 advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In that opinion, the ICJ concluded that States have a general obligation to refrain from causing environmental harm through greenhouse gas emissions. However, critical questions remain as to whether customary international law imposes specific, enforceable prohibitions requiring States to meet particular emissions thresholds. Advisory opinions, while influential, are not binding, and the translation of aspirational legal principles into enforceable norms remains unsettled.
Equally important are unresolved scientific debates underlying climate policy. Although the majority of climate scientists agree that increased greenhouse gas emissions contribute to warming, the climate models underpinning the IPCC Sixth Assessment rely on assumptions of substantial positive feedback mechanisms. These feedbacks dramatically amplify projected warming outcomes, yet remain scientifically contested. There are legitimate questions as to whether these assumptions reflect empirical certainty or are influenced by political and policy objectives. In short, while precaution is prudent, scientific humility remains essential.
The Ecocide Tribunal reflects a growing international movement to embed environmental stewardship into the architecture of international human rights law. This movement is driven by urgent concerns about environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate risk. At the same time, it must grapple with complex questions of causation, proportionality, sovereignty, economic development, and scientific uncertainty.
