Reacción a "The International Court of Justice will issue its advisory opinion today on countries' obligations to address the effects of climate change"

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its advisory opinion this week, I will be particularly interested in what it says about the following:

• Whether the ICJ concludes that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/ Paris Agreement regime is the primary set of legal obligations to determine what states have to do in order to address climate change or whether it engages with a wider set of legal rules and obligations;
• Whether the ICJ finds a due diligence obligation to address climate change and how it defines due diligence in this context, particularly in light of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities;
• How the ICJ engages with the science of climate change, in particular, in light of how the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) treated the science in the 2024 Advisory Opinion; 
• Whether the ICJ applies the precautionary principle and, if so, how it does so;
• Whether the ICJ engages with the law of the sea and how it deals with the ITLOS advisory opinion – does it support those findings (which were quite far reaching);
• Whether the ICJ engages with human rights – it would not have had the benefit of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' decision but does it take a similar approach?;

• If it finds states in breach of their obligations, how does it address what should follow – how does it apply state responsibility in this situation – do the normal rules apply?