Climate Justice Realism: A Manifesto for Transforming International Law

Introduction: A Planetary Crisis Beyond the Old Order

Climate change is not just an environmental issue – it is a civilizational challenge that exposes the limits of our current international legal order. The world’s warmest years and most extreme climate disasters are unfolding amid an international system built on Westphalian principles of absolute state sovereignty and non-intervention. These principles, born in an earlier era, now hamper urgent collective action and accountability for climate harms (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World) (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases). The “climate justice realism” framework begins with a stark acknowledgement: to avert climate catastrophe and address its inequities, international law must undergo a foundational shift in its values, institutions, and enforcement mechanisms. This manifesto outlines that shift – merging moral urgency with legal realism – to realign global law with the reality of a shared, imperiled atmosphere and the demands of justice for present and future generations.

At its core, climate justice realism insists that the survival of peoples and ecosystems trumps unfettered state rights. It calls out the “structured limitations” of an international system predicated on sovereign autonomy (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World), and insists on reframing sovereignty as responsibility. In what follows, we:

• Critique the current international legal principles – especially state sovereignty, non-intervention, and state-centric responsibility – that obstruct effective climate action and reparations.

• Articulate a legal rationale for overriding the sovereign license of petrostates to continue fossil fuel extraction, while addressing the justice claims of formerly colonized nations exploited under existing regimes.

• Propose theoretical and institutional models for a fast-track transformation – drawing lessons from the Paris Agreement, Nuremberg principles, WTO trade mechanisms, and emerging climate jurisprudence (e.g. the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion process).

• Outline concrete legal mechanisms and institutions to drive a rapid transition: from a fossil fuel phase-out framework and clean energy reparations fund, to enforcement tools like international tribunals or trade sanctions for climate protection.

• Provide a strategic roadmap to mobilize international legal scholars, global policymakers, and activist networks in concert, turning this manifesto into reality.

This manifesto is both a philosophical declaration of principles and a working draft of legal reforms. Climate justice realism recognizes the climate crisis as a global emergency requiring unprecedented legal evolution – akin to how the shock of World War II birthed new international norms (the U.N. Charter, human rights, Nuremberg trials). Today’s slow-burning catastrophe demands an equally profound reimagining of law’s foundations to ensure climate justice for all.

I. The Failures of the Current International Legal Order

1. Sovereignty and Non-Intervention as Climate Obstacles: The traditional conception of state sovereignty – each nation’s absolute right to exploit resources and pursue development within its territory – has become a climate anachronism. Under “business-as-usual” international law, a petrostate can extract and burn fossil fuels with near-impunity, even if those activities drastically heat the global atmosphere. The principle of non-intervention bars other states from interfering, treating climate disruption as an internal affair. This system is fundamentally ill-suited to a problem like climate change, where greenhouse gases respect no borders. As legal scholars note, “an international legal system based solely on sovereignty and rights of sovereignty is no longer sufficient today.” (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World) Climate change dramatically illustrates that a sovereignty-based international law is insufficient to respond to global challenges (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World).

• Territorial mindset vs. global commons: Classic international environmental law did recognize a “no-harm” rule (states must prevent serious transboundary environmental damage). But even that rule, rooted in sovereignty, has proven too weak – it relies on voluntary cooperation and has “significant constraints” under a sovereignty-focused paradigm (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World). When Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol or the U.S. pulled out of Paris, no binding enforcement prevented those retreats. The Paris Agreement itself, while a diplomatic triumph, underscores this tension: it “unshackles” climate cooperation from some sovereignty-based constraints only by deferring to state sovereignty – nations set their own pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions) and enforcement is soft (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World). In practice, the Paris framework’s accountability relies on peer pressure and transparency, as “there is no hard enforcement in the Paris Agreement.” (How are countries held accountable under the Paris Agreement? | MIT Climate Portal) No court, no sanctions await those who fail to meet their climate pledges. This deference may encourage participation, but it cannot ensure the deep, rapid emissions cuts science demands.

• State-Centric Responsibility Gaps: International law remains largely state-centric – it is ill-equipped to hold multinational corporations or other non-state actors accountable for climate harm. Oil and gas giants whose products drive climate change often operate across borders, exploiting gaps between national jurisdictions. Under the current regime, it is challenging to directly sue a corporation like Exxon or Shell in an international forum for climate damages. Victims must rely on domestic courts or novel strategies. (Indeed, a wave of climate lawsuits in national courts – e.g. California’s 2023 suit against Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and others – attempts to fill this void by alleging deception and demanding compensation (California sues oil giants, claiming they downplayed climate change for decades : NPR). California’s case highlights industry misconduct: the complaint claims these companies knew for decades that fossil fuels cause climate change but lied about it, profiting at the expense of the public (California sues oil giants, claiming they downplayed climate change for decades : NPR). Such litigation, now numbering in the dozens, is an important avenue for accountability, but it underscores the absence of a comprehensive international mechanism (California sues oil giants, claiming they downplayed climate change for decades : NPR).)

• Fragmented, Inequitable Responses: The current legal order also fails to ensure equity. Wealthy nations and major emitters largely set the agenda, often sidelining the voices of climate-vulnerable countries. There is an inherent power imbalance: those who contributed least (small islands, least-developed countries) suffer first and worst, yet international law offers them limited recourse beyond moral appeals. As one U.N. delegate from a vulnerable state observed, “the most vulnerable populations who have historically contributed the least to the unfolding climate calamity are being disproportionately affected” (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases). Yet principles like “common but differentiated responsibilities” – which recognize differing obligations based on historical emissions and capacity – remain soft norms rather than enforceable rules. The result is a justice deficit: polluters often evade full responsibility, while hard-hit communities receive inadequate support or reparations.

2. Historical Injustice and Climate Colonialism: Current international law not only struggles with climate change’s global nature – it also carries the baggage of historical injustice. Many formerly colonized nations are now urged to leave their fossil fuels untapped for the global good, even as they recall how colonial powers profited from the extraction of those very resources. This raises a glaring question of fairness: Who owes what, and who gets to develop? Under existing regimes, the legacy of colonial exploitation and unequal development is insufficiently addressed, effectively obstructing meaningful climate justice.

• Colonial emissions and skewed responsibility: For over a century, European empires and other colonial powers industrialized and emitted greenhouse gases – often counting those emissions under their own ledgers of progress. Meanwhile, colonies like Nigeria or India, which supplied raw materials (oil, coal, timber) under extraction economies, were left with polluted lands and underdevelopment. Recent analysis reveals that if we allocate historical emissions accounting for colonial rule, the responsibility of imperial powers sharply increases ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ) ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ). For example, the UK’s contribution to global CO₂ rises significantly when including emissions from its colonies; Britain moves from the world’s 8th largest cumulative emitter to the 4th, overtaking India (its former colony) in historical responsibility ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ). In other words, the carbon debt of colonial powers is far larger than traditional accounts suggest. Yet international climate agreements have been slow to incorporate this reality. Developing countries have long argued that the “historical responsibilities” of the Global North must translate into greater obligations to cut emissions and provide finance – a point even underscored by delegates at the UN: “those in the Global North who are responsible for global challenges continue to disregard their obligations… we cannot ignore their historical responsibilities and subsequent obligation to redress it.” (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases) Climate justice realism demands that this imbalance be rectified through law: the beneficiaries of past emissions must support and compensate those who were marginalized.

• Sovereignty for whom? The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, established in the 1960s as a hallmark of decolonization, affirmed that newly independent states have the right to control their own oil, gas, minerals, and forests. This was meant to protect them from neo-colonial exploitation. Ironically, today this principle can be double-edged: it is invoked by some developing countries to justify continued fossil fuel extraction (“it’s our sovereign right to develop our petroleum”), yet the benefits of that extraction often flow to foreign corporations or domestic elites, not ordinary citizens. Nowhere is this tension clearer than in places like the Niger Delta in Nigeria – a region rich in oil, ravaged by pollution, and emblematic of climate injustice. For decades, Shell and other multinationals extracted Nigeria’s “sweet crude” with scant regard for the environment or local communities. Under cover of sovereignty and corporate contracts, they operated with impunity: successive Nigerian governments (some of them brutal military regimes) colluded with oil interests, and the home states of the companies (UK, Netherlands) looked the other way or were “complicit” (Shell’s exit scam). The result has been devastating: the Niger Delta became one of the most “environmentally devastated” extraction sites on Earth, with levels of oil spillage and gas flaring so extreme they were described as “an environmental genocide” by a local commission (Shell’s exit scam). Yet international law provided little avenue to seek redress; when activists like Ken Saro-Wiwa rose to protest, they were met with violence and silence from the global community. Climate justice realism recognizes that such scenarios – where corporate profit and state sovereignty trump human and environmental rights – are morally untenable. We need new norms that pierce the shield of sovereignty when it is used to facilitate egregious environmental harm or to evade responsibility for climate damage.

• Climate as the new colonial question: There is a growing sentiment in the Global South that climate change is the newest phase of the colonial saga. Rich countries built their wealth on high emissions, and now developing countries are told to cut emissions for the global good – often without adequate support. Without a restructuring of international law, climate action could entrench a form of “climate apartheid”: wealthy nations fortify themselves and even profit from green technologies, while poorer nations face climate devastation with insufficient resources. Already, inequities abound. For instance, when Italy moved to ban new oil drilling off its coast for environmental reasons, it was sued by an international oil company: an arbitration tribunal ordered Italy to pay €190 million to the UK-based company (Rockhopper) as “compensation” for lost profits. This shocking outcome – effectively punishing a state for climate-protective action – stems from investor-state provisions in trade agreements that prioritize property rights over planetary rights. It exemplifies how existing legal regimes can actually undermine climate justice, forcing states to pay polluters. Such perversities must be eliminated in a reformed system.

3. Urgency, Security, and the Limits of Incrementalism: Finally, the current international legal framework is pathologically incremental in the face of an existential emergency. Climate science tells us we have only a brief window to halt irreversible damage (the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C is nearly exhausted ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief )). Yet international law responds with gradual conferences, non-binding pledges, and delayed action. The U.N. Security Council – the body meant to address global threats to peace and security – has been largely paralyzed on climate change, due in part to geopolitical rivalries and the notion that climate is outside its traditional security mandate. When sea-level rise and monster storms threaten the very existence of states, this division is no longer tenable. As the U.N. Secretary-General has warned, climate change is “a direct threat” to global stability and human wellbeing. If the law continues to move at glacial pace, the glaciers will be gone before the law acts. We cannot afford a regime where action is voluntary and slow, and inaction carries little consequence.

In sum, the status quo of international law – with its rigid sovereignty, weak enforcement, and neglect of historical injustices – is unfit for purpose in the age of climate crisis. Climate justice realism calls for a paradigm shift: from a world of independent sovereigns to a community of common fate, where the law protects the global climate and vulnerable populations with the same fervor it once protected sovereign prerogatives. This shift demands new principles of responsibility, new limits on state freedom to pollute, and new mechanisms to ensure compliance and repair. We turn now to the blueprint for that transformation.

II. Principles of Climate Justice Realism: Reimagining Foundations

Climate justice realism rests on several core principles that will guide the overhaul of international law. These principles blend moral imperatives (justice, equity, protection of life) with legal innovations (new rights, duties, and norms). They are informed by decades of climate justice scholarship and activism, as well as practical lessons from other transformative legal moments. We set them out here as a manifesto:

• Principle 1: Planetary Responsibility Supersedes Absolute Sovereignty. States remain important actors, but their right to exploit resources or emit greenhouse gases stops where the planet’s ecological limits begin. In legal terms, the sovereign right to develop must be constrained by an overarching duty to prevent catastrophic harm to the global climate system. This principle elevates the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere as the shared inheritance of humanity – a global commons – for which all states are trustees. It echoes concepts of “common concern of humankind” and intergenerational equity, making clear that no state has the “freedom” to inflict climate chaos on others. We call for recognition of a universal obligation erga omnes (owed to all) to protect the climate, which would trump inconsistent claims of sovereignty in cases of conflict. Practically, this principle underpins measures like an international ban on new coal, oil, and gas development – i.e. a state cannot simply cite sovereignty to open a massive new coal mine that pushes the world beyond 1.5°C.

• Principle 2: Differentiated Responsibilities and Climate Justice. All states have a duty to act on climate change, but not all duties are equal. Those countries (and companies) that emitted the most and benefited the most from fossil-fueled growth must take on the greatest burdens now – in cutting emissions to zero fastest, in financing the transition, and in compensating for loss and damage. Conversely, nations with small historical footprints and fewer resources should receive leeway and support. This is an expansion of the UNFCCC’s equity principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC), given real bite. Climate justice realism demands that historical “climate debt” be repaid: for instance, the wealthy and diversified economies should reach net-zero emissions well before 2050, whereas least developed countries may have a longer timeline. Equity is not a feel-good slogan but a practical necessity – as the IPCC has noted, global cooperation will only succeed if perceived as fair. Therefore, our framework would establish binding criteria for differentiation. To illustrate: an agreement might mandate that “extraction shall be phased out fastest in diversified, wealthier economies that can better absorb the transition impacts, while poorer countries can demand financial support for their just transition”. This reflects the ethical stance that those most able must do the most, and the vulnerable must not be left behind. Reparative justice is central – it’s not charity, but rectification of imbalance.

• Principle 3: The Right to a Healthy Climate and the Rights of Nature. We endorse the emerging recognition of a human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which numerous states and the UN General Assembly have supported. Every person, especially indigenous peoples and marginalized communities, should have the right to a stable climate and to seek redress when that right is violated. This principle reframes climate change as a human rights crisis – linking it to the right to life, health, food, water, and shelter. It provides a powerful legal basis for individuals and communities (not just states) to demand action. Furthermore, climate justice realism extends rights to the non-human world as well: acknowledging the concept of Rights of Nature or legal personhood for ecosystems (rivers, forests, glaciers) as tools to protect the Earth’s life support systems. While novel in international law, such ideas are gaining traction in national jurisdictions and could be elevated globally. At minimum, international law should recognize nature as more than property or resources – as having intrinsic value that the law must respect.

• Principle 4: Accountability Across Borders – Ending Impunity for Climate Harm. No actor, whether state or corporation or investor, should be beyond the reach of the law when it comes to climate destruction. Climate justice realism insists on accountability without borders. This entails internationalizing the “polluter pays” principle. If a company in State A causes harm to communities in State B (through emissions, oil spills, deforestation, etc.), those affected must have viable legal avenues to hold the company (and by extension, State A) accountable. We champion new norms of transboundary environmental liability and expanded jurisdiction for courts to hear climate claims that cross borders. Additionally, we support the creation of specific international civil liability regimes for climate-related damage (similar to existing ones for oil spill damage or nuclear accidents). Such regimes could, for example, impose strict liability on major greenhouse emitters for the costs of climate impacts (storms, sea-level rise, crop failures) suffered by vulnerable nations. The backing principle is that the burden of climate damages should fall on those who caused them, not the innocent victims. There is also a corollary: climate harm and ecocide should be international crimes (see Principle 5).

• Principle 5: Climate Destruction as an International Crime – From Ecocide to Accountability of Leaders. Just as genocide and crimes against humanity shocked the conscience of mankind and were outlawed, the massive and knowing destruction of our climate and environment must be criminalized at the international level. We call for the recognition of Ecocide – severe, widespread, or long-term damage to the environment – as a crime under international law. A panel of legal experts has in fact proposed a historic definition of ecocide: “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian) If adopted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) member states, ecocide would join genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression as offenses that individuals (e.g. corporate executives, government ministers) can be held liable for (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian). This would be revolutionary – the first new international crime defined since the Nuremberg trials era, explicitly protecting the environment. It reflects the grim reality that climate collapse poses an existential threat on par with war. Indeed, advocates note that existing international crimes can sometimes cover environmental harm (for instance, severe climate inaction by a government that leads to widespread death could arguably amount to a crime against humanity, as it involves “inhumane acts” knowingly causing suffering). The Nuremberg principles taught us that individuals – not only states – must answer to humanity’s laws. Climate justice realism revives that spirit: those who knowingly betray our planetary future (by obstructing climate action or egregiously polluting for profit) should face legal accountability, whether through the ICC or special international tribunals. This principle is about deterrence and moral judgment: to proclaim that the destruction of the Earth is an intolerable atrocity. It also ensures that leaders cannot hide behind the excuse of sovereignty or “just following orders” – echoing Nuremberg’s stance that higher duties to humanity exist.

• Principle 6: Urgency, Prevention, and Precaution – Act Now, Not Later. In the face of potentially irreversible climate tipping points, the law must adopt an ethos of urgency. The precautionary principle (widely recognized in environmental law) says that lack of full scientific certainty is no excuse to postpone measures to prevent serious harm. Climate justice realism goes further: given we have full scientific certainty of dire harm, the law must compel proactive, even anticipatory, action. This principle would support, for example, a legal declaration of global climate emergency that empowers international institutions to take extraordinary measures (akin to a state of emergency, but for the planet). It also means setting hard deadlines and triggers: e.g. a binding schedule to peak global emissions by 2025 and halve them by 2030, or automatic sanctions if these targets are not met. Any delay is essentially a decision to impose greater burdens on future generations – a form of discrimination against the young and unborn. Therefore, the bias of law must be in favor of swift emissions reductions, adaptation for the vulnerable, and aggressive measures to keep warming within safe levels, even if it inconveniences current economic interests. Law should prioritize preventing harm before it happens (e.g. stopping new fossil fuel infrastructure) rather than managing devastation after the fact.

• Principle 7: Integration of Climate Justice into All Areas of Law (Mainstreaming). Climate change is not a siloed issue; it touches human rights, trade, finance, development, and security. Climate justice realism holds that every international legal regime must be revisited and revised in light of the climate crisis. Trade law, for instance, should no longer treat climate measures as potential illegal barriers, but rather facilitate climate action (trade rules must permit carbon tariffs or bans on high-emission goods). Investment law should not protect fossil fuel investments at the expense of the climate – instead, treaties should protect states’ right (even obligation) to regulate for rapid decarbonization without fear of being sued by investors. Human rights law should interpret the right to life and health as including protection from climate impacts, thereby imposing duties on states to mitigate emissions. Refugee law may need updating to accommodate climate-displaced persons with dignity and rights. In short, climate justice is a lens that must be applied across the board. International law cannot remain fragmented; it must deliver a coherent response to climate change that aligns all its sub-regimes towards the common goal of a livable planet with justice.

These principles form the normative backbone of climate justice realism. They collectively assert a bold vision: an international legal order where preventing climate catastrophe and remedying climate injustice are paramount obligations, embedded at the highest level (even as jus cogens peremptory norms, one might argue). This would mark a foundational shift – akin to how human rights and self-determination reshaped international law post-1945.

In operationalizing these principles, we look to concrete models and reforms. The next section explores how existing frameworks – from the Paris Agreement to the Nuremberg legacy – inform our proposals, and sketches the institutional innovations needed to realize this manifesto’s vision.

III. Fast-Track Transformation: Learning from (and Moving Beyond) Existing Frameworks

Transforming international law for climate justice will not occur in a vacuum; we must build on existing legal frameworks, even as we radically modify them. In this section, we draw lessons from several key regimes and historical precedents – identifying elements to repurpose or reform in service of a fast and just climate transition.

A. The Paris Agreement and Beyond: From Voluntary Pledges to Binding Commitments

The 2015 Paris Agreement marked a diplomatic breakthrough – all nations agreed to hold warming “well below 2°C” and pursue 1.5°C, with universal participation. Its bottom-up pledge structure (each country’s NDC) was a pragmatic response to the failures of Kyoto’s top-down targets. However, as discussed, Paris is fundamentally a soft-law instrument. Its strength lies in transparency and global peer pressure, but its weakness is the lack of enforcement (How are countries held accountable under the Paris Agreement? | MIT Climate Portal). Countries determine their own ambition, and if they fall short, there is no court or penalty waiting – only the glare of the Global Stocktake and the (often faint) specter of shaming.

Climate justice realism insists we push beyond Paris in several ways:

• Turning Aspirations into Law: The temperature goals (1.5°C/2°C) and net-zero by mid-century objectives should be codified into binding international law. This could mean an amendment to the Paris Agreement or a new protocol that sets legally enforceable carbon budgets or emissions pathways for states, in line with equity. For instance, a schedule could be agreed where the top 20 emitters each have specific reduction obligations (derived from science and fairness metrics), subject to international verification. An analogy can be drawn to the Montreal Protocol’s compliance system, which successfully phased out ozone-depleting substances with binding targets and trade sanctions for non-compliance. A climate compliance mechanism could similarly be empowered.

• From Pledges to “Climate Obligations”: We can draw on the ongoing initiative at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In 2023, the UN General Assembly unanimously requested an ICJ Advisory Opinion on states’ climate obligations (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases). The questions posed to the ICJ essentially ask: What are countries required to do under international law to protect the climate for present and future generations, and what are the consequences if they cause harm? (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases). Many states hailed this move as a “milestone in the decades-long struggle for climate justice.” (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases) The ICJ’s eventual opinion (expected in 2024 or 2025) could clarify that states must cut emissions consistent with global temperature goals and uphold human rights of the climate-vulnerable. It might also affirm duties to cooperate and support poorer nations. While advisory and not binding, such pronouncements can crystallize new norms. Our manifesto supports leveraging the ICJ process to bolster the legal force of Paris commitments, effectively upgrading them from political promises to expectations grounded in law. We envision a world where failing to align with a 1.5°C pathway is seen not just as unfortunate, but as a breach of international obligation – with states and even private actors potentially liable for resulting damage. In short, we seek to inject the rule of law into climate governance: making temperature goals and emissions targets justiciable.

• Greater Ambition Mechanisms: The Paris framework’s “ratchet mechanism” (5-yearly NDC updates) is a good start, but insufficient. We propose an institutional mechanism for “climate emergency escalation” – if global emissions do not decline by a certain percentage by 2025 or if warming projections exceed the safe limit, an automatic conference is triggered to adopt more stringent measures (such as a coordinated carbon price floor, or sectoral bans on high-emission activities). This could be modeled on emergency sessions (like the WHO can declare pandemics or health emergencies). Essentially, the law must react faster to climate realities. Institutions like the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) might need reform (e.g. moving from consensus to supermajority voting on critical decisions, to avoid one or two big polluters vetoing stronger action).

• Including Climate Justice in Implementation: The Paris Agreement preamble mentions human rights and justice, but the operative text doesn’t elaborate on fair shares or support obligations in detail. We should integrate climate justice criteria into the implementation guidelines. For example, when assessing NDC adequacy, an official technical review could consider whether a state is doing its “fair share” relative to its historical emissions and capacity. This can create normative pressure for laggards (often rich nations) to step up, aligning with the principle of differentiated responsibility.

In summary, Paris is the foundation, but not the ceiling. We advocate building a more robust legal superstructure on it – one that mandates action and embeds equity. The Paris Agreement showed unity of purpose; the next step is unity in law and accountability.

B. Nuremberg Principles and the International Criminal Law Approach

After World War II, the Nuremberg trials and subsequent principles reset the moral baseline for international law: aggressive war and mass atrocities became punishable crimes by international tribunals, even if domestic law allowed them. We see a parallel necessity today. The wanton destruction of the environment in peacetime has until now largely escaped criminal consequences. However, momentum is growing to apply Nuremberg’s legacy of accountability to environmental crimes and climate destruction:

• Ecocide as the 5th Crime Under the ICC: As noted, a panel of experts (including renowned jurist Philippe Sands) crafted a definition of Ecocide and proposed amending the Rome Statute of the ICC to include it (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian). If states parties adopt this, the ICC could prosecute individuals (CEOs, ministers, even heads of state) for egregious environmental offenses. Imagine an oil executive or a deforestation kingpin being held criminally liable for knowingly causing climate harm – it would be a game-changer. The draft ecocide law is intended to target only the most extreme, systematic cases of environmental destruction, but climate justice realism suggests that some forms of climate denial and obstruction by industry – for example, decades-long deception campaigns by Big Oil to stall climate action – could fit this category of grave wrongdoing. Indeed, California’s lawsuit uncovered how oil companies “fed us lies and mistruths” about climate science for 50+ years (California sues oil giants, claiming they downplayed climate change for decades : NPR); such deliberate sabotage of the planet’s future could arguably be characterized as a crime against humanity or ecocide, given the scale of harm.

• Using Existing Crimes Creatively: Even before a formal ecocide crime is adopted, international criminal law isn’t powerless. Legal scholars and advocates have urged the ICC to use existing categories (like crimes against humanity) to prosecute severe environmental offenses (The International Criminal Court must advance justice for environmental crimes | Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment). For example, if a government’s climate negligence leads to tens of thousands of deaths or displacements (due to famine or disasters), that might be framed as an “other inhumane act” done with knowledge of likely consequences – thus fitting crimes against humanity. The ICC Prosecutor has already indicated willingness to consider cases with environmental aspects. Climate justice realism supports this creative enforcement – treating climate collapse as within the ambit of international peace and justice. We recall the ICC’s mandate includes maintaining “the peace, security and well-being of the world” – climate disruptions clearly endanger all three.

• National Prosecution of Climate Crimes: In parallel, countries can incorporate ecocide or similar offenses into their domestic laws (as France and others are exploring). Using universal jurisdiction, states could prosecute foreign actors for climate crimes that affect the whole world (much as some do for torture or piracy). A concerted effort by a coalition of justice-oriented states could create an accountability web that transcends borders. For instance, if an Amazon rainforest arsonist or a major illegal carbon emitter knows they could be arrested upon travel to any of a number of countries due to outstanding international warrants, it raises the stakes for destructive behavior.

The Nuremberg ethos also reminds us of the importance of individual moral accountability. It asserts that “crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals can the provisions of international law be enforced.” In the climate context, this translates to stripping away the shield of the corporation or the state to find those decision-makers who recklessly imperil humanity’s future – and ensuring they face justice.

C. Trade and Finance: Leverage and Reform the WTO and Bretton Woods Systems

The global economy and its governing rules (WTO, World Bank, IMF, etc.) often incentivize environmental harm or constrain climate action. But these regimes can be retooled into part of the solution:

• Climate-Consistent Trade Rules: Under climate justice realism, trade law must empower climate action, not hinder it. The WTO’s rules were written without climate in mind, but flexibilities exist. For instance, Article XX of GATT allows trade restrictions for health and environmental protection. Recent legal analysis suggests that if climate change is recognized as an “emergency in international relations,” countries would get wide latitude in the WTO to enact carbon border taxes or import bans aimed at reducing emissions. We support efforts to formally acknowledge climate emergency within trade fora, thus preemptively legitimizing strong climate measures. One concrete proposal: a globally coordinated Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), like the EU is implementing, which imposes fees on high-carbon imports to prevent “carbon leakage” (shifting of dirty production overseas). Such a mechanism should be designed with equity – perhaps exempting least developed countries or using revenues to fund their clean transition – but it sends a powerful economic signal. If necessary, climate alliances might create plurilateral trade agreements among willing countries to impose tariffs on products from countries grossly failing their climate duties (a form of climate club enforcement). The WTO should adapt or allow such clubs rather than stand in the way. Indeed, far from being a violator of trade law, a carefully crafted carbon tariff regime can be justified under WTO exceptions as protecting a finite natural resource (the atmosphere) or public health. Our manifesto calls for a “climate waiver” in the WTO – a decision that climate measures taken in good faith will not be challenged as trade violations. Trade sanctions were critical in other global struggles (e.g. apartheid South Africa); they could be crucial to spur climate laggards or petrostates to change course.

• Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Protecting Green Subsidies: The WTO and related agreements should also support removal of perverse subsidies. Governments still spend hundreds of billions subsidizing coal, oil, and gas, artificially lowering prices and encouraging emissions. A climate-just international law would classify fossil fuel subsidies as a prohibited practice, much like other trade-distorting subsidies, and allow countermeasures. Simultaneously, subsidies for clean energy and climate-friendly tech should be explicitly allowed and encouraged (current trade rules sometimes consider them unfair competition). This realignment can harness global markets to hasten the energy transition.

• Reforming International Investment Law: The current system of bilateral investment treaties and mechanisms like the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) often protect fossil fuel investors, as we saw with the Rockhopper v. Italy case. We propose an overhaul: treaties must include carve-outs stating that climate measures (like banning oil drilling or imposing pollution limits) are not to be treated as expropriation requiring compensation. In fact, we urge inserting duties for investors: e.g. a foreign investor must comply with host country climate policies and respect human rights, or lose treaty protection. Several countries are already withdrawing from the ECT over these concerns – momentum is building to ensure investment law does not derail climate progress (International Investment Law and Climate Justice: The Search for a Just Green Investment Order by Olabisi D. Akinkugbe, Adebayo Majekolagbe :: SSRN) (International Investment Law and Climate Justice: The Search for a Just Green Investment Order by Olabisi D. Akinkugbe, Adebayo Majekolagbe :: SSRN). Ultimately, a Climate Investment Protocol could be developed to replace the patchwork: it would affirm the right (and obligation) of states to regulate for rapid decarbonization, encourage green investment, and possibly establish an international fund to compensate investors only in very limited cases where public interest requires sudden closure of certain projects (and even then, the funding could come from a global pot, not to penalize an individual state for doing the right thing).

• Global Finance and Debt Justice: Climate justice realism also extends to the international financial institutions. Developing nations facing climate disasters often are weighed down by debt (much of it a legacy of colonialism or unfair terms). We support initiatives for climate debt swaps and grant-based climate finance to avoid burdening vulnerable states. The IMF and World Bank should integrate climate risk and justice into their lending decisions – for example, offering concessional loans or relief for countries investing in resilience or transitioning from coal. These institutions could be re-mandated to prioritize funding for renewable energy, adaptation infrastructure, and “loss and damage” responses (compensating for climate-inflicted losses). The new Loss and Damage Fund agreed at recent UN climate summits is a step in this direction – it aims to help vulnerable countries pay for climate-induced disasters (How does the loss and damage fund work for climate justice?) (COP28 agrees to establish loss and damage fund for vulnerable ...). Climate justice realism would embed such funding as obligatory (based on responsibility and ability to pay), not charity. In legal terms, one could envision an arrangement where major emitters are assessed contributions to global climate funds analogous to how UN dues are assessed – with non-payment leading to consequences.

D. Emerging Jurisprudence: Courts and Human Rights Bodies as Catalysts

Around the world, courts are increasingly stepping into the climate arena. From the Dutch Urgenda case (where citizens forced the Netherlands to adopt stricter emission cuts on human rights grounds) to rights-based climate cases in Germany, Colombia, Pakistan, and beyond, judiciaries are interpreting existing law in light of the climate crisis. Internationally, bodies like the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee are hearing petitions that climate inaction violates the right to life and culture (such as a case brought by Torres Strait Islanders against Australia).

Climate justice realism envisions a more formal role for such judicial and quasi-judicial bodies:

• Advisory Opinions and Precedents: We already mentioned the ICJ advisory opinion effort. Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2017 gave an advisory opinion recognizing the right to a healthy environment as fundamental. We encourage more of these opinions to lay down interpretive guides that climate protection is a legal duty under human rights law. Such pronouncements can then be cited in national courts, creating a virtuous circle of jurisprudence.

• A Specialized International Climate Court or Tribunal: Taking inspiration from international economic courts (like the WTO’s dispute body) or regional human rights courts, we propose exploring an International Climate Justice Tribunal. This could be established by treaty (perhaps by a coalition of willing states initially) and would hear cases related to climate obligations. For example, small island states could bring a case against a large emitter state for failing to mitigate, seeking a declaratory judgment and even compensation for damage. Or groups of citizens/indigenous peoples might be granted standing to sue states that violate their rights through inadequate climate action. The tribunal’s decisions could be legally binding for parties that accept its jurisdiction. While political hurdles exist (major powers might resist), even a smaller-scale tribunal could build moral and legal pressure. Notably, something similar was proposed by Vanuatu in the past – an international insurance mechanism or tribunal for climate damage. The tribunal could also serve as a venue to enforce commitments – e.g. reviewing whether countries are fulfilling their finance pledges, and adjudicating disputes over things like carbon border taxes or geoengineering deployment. Its creation would signal that climate justice is important enough to warrant a standing international court, much as trade disputes or maritime boundaries currently have.

• Incorporating Indigenous and Grassroots Voices: A transformed legal regime must also reform procedure to include those most affected. This might mean giving observer or amicus status to representatives of climate-impacted communities at international proceedings, so their perspectives are heard. It could also mean designing adjudicative bodies that operate in accessible ways (different languages, lower costs, possibly a public petition mechanism akin to the Inter-American human rights system). Climate justice must not be top-down only; it should empower bottom-up legal mobilization.

• Enforcement Challenges: Of course, even if we have new laws and courts, enforcement remains a challenge in international law. Here, a combination of carrot and stick is needed. Carrot: robust compliance mechanisms that assist countries to meet their obligations (technical help, flexible implementation timelines for those genuinely struggling, etc.). Stick: consequences like sanctions, loss of certain privileges, or international censure for willful non-compliance. For example, countries that persistently defy climate obligations could face coordinated trade restrictions or lose voting rights in international forums. Conversely, countries making exemplary efforts could be rewarded (preferential trade access, debt forgiveness, etc.). The key is creating a system where there are real costs to being a climate rogue state or company, and real benefits to being a climate leader.

In synthesizing lessons: the international community has, in other contexts, shown ability to rapidly create new norms and institutions when political will is present. The establishment of the WTO in the 1990s bound countries to strict trade discipline with enforcement teeth; the creation of the ICC in 1998 carved out new terrain for individual accountability. Why not harness similar energy for the defining issue of our time – climate change?

The theoretical models and precedents above serve to illuminate pathways. Now we turn to our concrete proposals – the nuts and bolts of a new legal architecture for climate justice – and then outline a strategic roadmap to achieve it.

IV. Proposals for Legal Mechanisms and Institutions for a Climate Just Future

Drawing on the principles and models discussed, this section sets out specific legal mechanisms and institutional reforms that could operationalize climate justice realism. These proposals range from treaty provisions to new bodies, and they aim to facilitate a rapid, just transition to a clean energy world with accountability for past and present harms. We present them as actionable items – a draft blueprint for negotiators, lawmakers, and advocates.

A. Global Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Treaty (“Energy Transition Treaty”)

At the heart of the climate crisis is the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, an essential legal instrument is one that directly tackles fossil fuel production. We propose a Global Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Treaty, inspired by the concept of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (FFNPT) that civil society and some states have begun advocating (Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative - Wikipedia). This treaty would be to carbon what arms control treaties are to nuclear weapons – a binding commitment to end expansion and gradually reduce stockpiles (in this case, reserves).

Key elements:

• No New Fossil Fuel Development: Upon entry into force, parties would agree to an immediate moratorium on new coal mines, oil and gas exploration, and other fossil fuel infrastructure. This implements the scientific consensus that no new fossil fuel projects are viable if we are to stay within carbon budgets. It mirrors how the Montreal Protocol immediately banned new production of certain CFCs. In essence, the treaty slams the brakes on expanding the problem.

• Equitable Phase-Down of Existing Production: All parties commit to a managed decline of existing fossil fuel extraction and use. The treaty would establish a schedule (with five-year review intervals) for cutting production, differentiated by country circumstances. For example, wealthy high-producing countries (think Gulf states, US, Russia, etc.) take the earliest and largest cuts, while lower-income producers get more time for transition. The ultimate goal is a near-complete phase-out of unabated fossil fuels by a certain date (e.g. 2050 for oil and gas, 2040 for coal, with variations by country category). The treaty could set an aggregate carbon budget and allocate production allowances or quotas that shrink over time.

• Just Transition Support: Crucially, the treaty would create mechanisms to support countries (and communities) that currently rely on fossil fuel revenues. This might include a Global Transition Fund – financed by richer nations and possibly by innovative sources like a levy on international aviation/maritime fuel – to help diversify economies, retrain workers, and replace fossil revenue. It addresses the legitimate claim of countries like Nigeria or Angola: if they are to leave oil in the ground for humanity’s sake, they deserve assistance to avoid economic collapse. This is effectively clean energy reparations: compensation for foregone development opportunities and past exploitation. For instance, a country agreeing to cancel a major coal project might receive grants to build solar farms and factories for solar panels, employing the local workforce.

• Petrostate Transition Compacts: As a supplement, large petrostate economies (including formerly colonized ones) could negotiate specific “just transition compacts” under the treaty. For example, Nigeria might commit to cap oil output by 2025 and reduce it thereafter, in exchange for a package of debt relief, technology transfer (e.g. help building a renewable energy grid), and funds to clean up oil pollution in the Niger Delta (addressing the legacy of Shell’s damage). These compacts recognize different historical contexts: one between, say, Norway (an affluent petrostate) and Nigeria (a less developed petrostate) would differ in terms of external support.

Legal enforcement: The treaty should have an overseeing body (a Secretariat and perhaps an Implementation Committee) that monitors compliance. There could be penalties for cheating – for instance, if a country surreptitiously licenses new drilling, other parties can impose agreed sanctions (like restricting fossil fuel trade with that country). Also, transparency will be vital: a Global Registry of Fossil Fuels (Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative - Wikipedia) has been proposed, which would track reserves and production, ensuring countries’ reports are verified and that the phase-out trajectory is transparent to all.

Notably, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation initiative has momentum – it’s been endorsed by Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the WHO, the European Parliament, and hundreds of cities (Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative - Wikipedia). Our proposal aligns with this burgeoning movement, giving it a formal legal structure. By directly targeting supply, we close the biggest gap left by the Paris Agreement (which focuses on emissions within countries but doesn’t explicitly say “leave oil in the ground”). As climate activist Greta Thunberg bluntly put it, “our house is on fire”; a fossil fuel treaty is about shutting off the gas feeding that fire.

B. Clean Energy Marshal Plan and Climate Finance Reforms

Hand-in-hand with constraints on fossil fuels, we need a massive scale-up of clean energy and climate resilience – especially in the Global South. We propose establishing robust legal mechanisms for climate finance and technology transfer, treating them as obligations rather than charity:

• Climate Finance Commitments as Legally Binding: Currently, developed countries have a loose goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year (a goal repeatedly missed). Under a new legal framework, finance commitments should be set in stone and scaled up (think trillions, not billions, given needs). For example, a Climate Finance Protocol under the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement could specify that each Annex II (developed) country must contribute annually a calculated amount based on GDP and historical emissions, to pooled climate funds. Failure to pay in could be penalized via naming and shaming or even by allowing affected states to seek redress (one could imagine a state bringing a case to the climate tribunal that Country X didn’t deliver its finance share, causing harm by delaying adaptation projects).

• Global Renewable Energy Partnership: Modeled after the 1940s Marshall Plan (which rebuilt war-torn Europe), we urge a Global Green New Deal type program – effectively a Marshal Plan for Climate. This would entail wealthy nations (and willing private sector partners) investing in large-scale renewable energy infrastructure in developing nations, with terms favoring the recipients (grants or very low-interest loans). Legally, this could be encapsulated in a treaty or high-level agreement that sets targets like: “By 2030, mobilize $Y to install Z gigawatts of renewable capacity in Africa, Latin America, etc.” It might establish a consortium of development banks and a coordination mechanism to streamline funding. The key is that all nations agree that ensuring access to clean energy for all is part of climate justice – no country should be forced to choose coal because it can’t afford solar.

• Technology Sharing Guarantees: Patents and intellectual property should not hinder the spread of green technology. We propose a Climate Technology Access Agreement where countries agree to open licensing of critical climate-related technologies (like advanced batteries, green hydrogen processes, carbon capture for essential industries, etc.) to poorer nations on non-profit terms. This echoes the flexibilities in WTO’s TRIPS Agreement for essential medicines (like how HIV drugs were made more accessible via compulsory licensing). Climate change is an emergency of similar gravity, so legal tools like compulsory licensing or patent pools must be employed to transfer knowledge quickly. Additionally, a global network of research collaboration could be boosted – for example, an international mission to improve battery storage or carbon sequestration, with free dissemination of results.

• Loss and Damage Mechanism with Liability: Building on the new Loss and Damage Fund (What you need to know about the COP27 Loss and Damage Fund), we envisage a more structured compensation regime. This could take inspiration from how the international oil pollution fund compensates victims of tanker spills. Parties could establish a Climate Damages Insurance Fund where major emitters pay premiums (based on their emissions and wealth), and when climate disasters strike (beyond adaptation limits), affected countries can receive payouts swiftly. Over time, if emissions are not curtailed by some parties, their contributions (or liability share) would increase. This injects the polluter pays principle directly: those who have contributed most to the problem put more into the pot that covers the costs.

C. International Climate Justice Tribunal and Enhanced Adjudication

To enforce the norms and give impacted communities a voice, the following institutional innovations are proposed:

• International Climate Justice Tribunal (ICJT): As introduced earlier, an ICJT would be a new judicial body where states (and possibly non-state actors via state espousal or direct access) can bring cases related to climate law breaches. We suggest the tribunal have broad jurisdiction over disputes arising from climate treaties (Paris Agreement, the proposed Fossil Fuel Treaty, etc.), as well as claims of state responsibility for climate harm. For example, Pacific Island States could sue major emitting states for contributing to sea level rise that infringes their territorial integrity and human rights. While causation and attribution have legal complexities, scientific advances (e.g. event attribution science) now make it feasible to link emissions to specific damage with reasonable certainty. The tribunal could over time develop jurisprudence on how to apportion responsibility among multiple contributors, possibly leading to innovative judgments (e.g., declaring that State A must pay State B $X in climate damages, or must take specific mitigation actions as a form of injunctive relief).

• Structure and Enforcement: The ICJT could be constituted under the auspices of the UN (perhaps as a specialized chamber of the ICJ or a separate treaty-based court). To encourage participation, initial membership could be voluntary, but there might be carrots (only members can bring cases) and sticks (pressure on big players to join as climate impacts worsen). If a judgment is issued, enforcement could be sought through political means (UN Security Council, though veto issues exist) or through domestic courts recognizing the judgment (e.g. seizing assets if a country refuses to pay compensation). Admittedly, enforcing interstate judgments is challenging, but even the existence of a clear legal finding can carry weight (moral pressure, impact on a state’s reputation and credit rating, etc.). Over time, compliance might improve as the norm of climate liability solidifies.

• Expansion of Human Rights Fora: In parallel, existing human rights courts and committees should explicitly integrate climate issues. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) hearing climate cases could set precedent that inadequate climate policy violates the right to life (Article 2) and right to private/family life (Article 8) of European citizens. That would compel stronger action among Council of Europe states. Similarly, regional courts in Africa and the Americas could do the same. These decisions would be binding on governments in their respective systems. We support the idea that individuals and NGOs be empowered to invoke climate arguments in any relevant legal challenge, effectively making climate considerations mainstream in rights litigation.

• Legal Standing for Affected Communities and Future Generations: We propose innovative legal standing rules. The ICJT (or other courts) could allow class actions or collective complaints on behalf of those impacted by climate change. For example, representative groups of indigenous peoples, farmers, or youth could file a case against multiple governments for failing to safeguard their future. There’s precedent in some human rights systems for collective petitions. Additionally, appointing Guardians for Future Generations – official advocates who can speak in court for the unborn or minors – can ensure the long-term perspective is always considered in legal proceedings. This was done, for instance, in some national contexts (New Zealand has a guardian for nature, Wales has a future generations commissioner). We suggest elevating that to international procedures.

• Climate Ombudsperson or Commissioner: As an auxiliary institution, a global Climate Justice Ombudsperson could be established. This office would hear complaints from individuals or communities worldwide who claim that some state or company’s actions are harming them via climate change. The Ombudsperson could investigate and issue recommendations or mediate solutions. Though not a court, this provides an accessible platform for grievances and can feed cases into formal legal channels if needed. It’s a way to democratize and humanize international law, bringing grassroots voices to the top.

D. Enforcement Tools: Sanctions, Trade Adjustments, and Incentives

No legal system works without enforcement. For international climate obligations, enforcement will likely rely on a mix of peer pressure, economic measures, and internal national measures (since international law often is implemented domestically). Here are mechanisms to ensure the new rules bite:

• Conditionality and Sanctions: Nations that flout the collective climate agreements could face coordinated consequences. For example, if a country refused to halt fossil expansion despite the Fossil Fuel Treaty, others might impose an embargo on certain exports or restrict financing to that country’s projects. A more structured approach: incorporate climate compliance into membership criteria for clubs like the G7, G20, OECD, etc. We might envision a future where, say, non-compliance with a climate regime leads to suspension of voting rights in international bodies or loss of access to certain development aid. While aggressive, these measures signal that failing to act on climate is as serious as violating trade rules or nuclear non-proliferation – which already carry penalties.

• “Climate Tariff” Consequences: Building on the WTO discussion, if diplomacy fails, a group of climate-progressive countries could implement tariffs on imports from countries not meeting their climate targets (often dubbed a “carbon border adjustment”). This creates a direct economic cost for laggards. Ideally, this is done under an agreed framework to avoid chaos – e.g., the climate club idea by economist William Nordhaus: members impose tariffs on non-members to incentivize joining. Climate justice realism adds that any such tariff scheme should include exemptions or revenue recycling to poor nations to ensure it doesn’t become punitive to the wrong parties. The principle is leveraging market access – a big stick in trade – to enforce climate norms.

• Liability for Corporations: Enforcement is not just state-to-state. Corporate actors can be incentivized or compelled to change by liability risk and disclosure requirements. We propose that international or national laws mandate large corporations to report their carbon footprint and climate risk exposure (this is already happening through ESG frameworks). More strongly, companies that continue high-emission practices could face lawsuits (as we see emerging) and even sanctions like being barred from public contracts or financial markets (some pension funds are divesting from coal, etc.). If ecocide becomes a crime, corporate officers might risk prison for severe environmental negligence. Knowing that the legal tide is turning can prod companies to transition faster (we see some oil majors starting to diversify to renewables under shareholder and legal pressure).

• Trade Incentives for Green Goods: On the flip side of sanctions, offer incentives. For instance, eliminate tariffs on clean technologies globally (a green goods agreement) to speed their adoption. Or give preferential trade terms (lower tariffs or quotas) to products certified as made with low-carbon methods or fair transition practices. This carrot approach rewards those aligning with climate goals.

• Debt and Finance Enforcement: International financial flows can enforce climate goals too. Multilateral development banks could condition loans on climate criteria. Private banks are already under pressure to stop financing new fossil fuel projects. Legal frameworks could require banks to perform climate due diligence. Countries heavily in debt could receive relief conditional on investing the freed resources in climate resilience or renewable energy. This ties financial health with climate action.

E. Clean Energy Reparations and Adaptation Justice

A critical component of climate justice is addressing not just mitigation (emission reduction) but also adaptation and the damages already being felt. Our legal overhaul must ensure mechanisms for reparative justice:

• Operationalizing Loss & Damage Fund: The Loss and Damage Fund agreed at COP27/COP28 must be made fully operational with substantial funding. It should function transparently and quickly, much like a disaster insurance: when a country is hit by a climate calamity (mega-cyclone, catastrophic flood, slow-onset events like sea-level rise), it can apply and get support to rebuild and recover. We propose the fund have a formula to determine payouts based on severity and contributing factors. Over time, if high-emitting countries remain laggards, they might be expected to contribute more to this fund – connecting cause and effect.

• Legal Acknowledgment of Climate Refugees: We should consider a protocol to the Refugee Convention or a new instrument to recognize climate-displaced persons. People forced to leave their homes due to climate impacts (whether sudden disasters or slow changes) should have rights to protection and resettlement. A burden-sharing mechanism would prevent frontline states (like small islands or coastal areas) from bearing it alone. This might entail commitments by countries to accept a quota of climate migrants or finance local adaptation to reduce displacement.

• Restorative Justice for Affected Regions: International law should encourage programs to restore and rehabilitate environments damaged by climate change or fossil fuel extraction. For example, as part of climate reparations, major emitters could fund the restoration of coral reefs or replant mangroves in affected tropical nations, or pay to clean up oil-soaked wetlands (as in the Niger Delta). This not only helps those regions adapt but symbolically acknowledges responsibility. There could be a Climate Restoration Trust that manages such projects with international oversight.

• Empowerment of Indigenous Knowledge: Many communities have valuable knowledge for adaptation and mitigation (forest management, sustainable agriculture). Treaties and institutions should ensure indigenous peoples’ rights and knowledge are respected in climate solutions. Perhaps a formal advisory council of indigenous elders to the UNFCCC or climate tribunal could be established, embedding their role in decision-making.

All these mechanisms aim to ensure that as we race to stabilize climate, we do so in a way that remediates harm and fosters global solidarity, rather than leaving the vulnerable to fend for themselves.

Taken together, the above proposals form a comprehensive package: restricting the bad (fossil fuels), boosting the good (clean technology and resilience), enforcing rules (courts and sanctions), and caring for those hurt (reparations and rights). This is the working draft of a new international legal order attuned to climate realities and justice.

To illustrate what such reforms might look like in legal text, we provide a sample draft in the next section. Following that, we conclude with a strategic roadmap – because even the best ideas mean little without a plan to implement them.

V. Strategic Roadmap: From Vision to Reality

Achieving the sweeping changes outlined is undoubtedly a formidable task. It requires building an unprecedented coalition of actors – states big and small, legal experts, activists, civil society, and the public – to demand and realize reform. History shows that transformative ideas (like abolition of slavery, decolonization, human rights) only triumph through persistent pressure and coalition-building across different arenas. Climate justice realism must similarly galvanize multiple fronts. Here we detail a roadmap to influence international legal scholars, global policymakers, and activist networks simultaneously, creating a reinforcing momentum for change.

1. Shaping Scholarly Discourse and Legal Education: International legal scholars are the architects and archivists of global norms. We must ignite a paradigm shift in academia towards climate justice realism. This involves:

• Publishing Manifestos and Research: Legal scholars and practitioners should publish influential articles and books making the case for the new principles and mechanisms. Journals of international law should be flooded with analysis of sovereignty’s limits in the climate context, the feasibility of climate treaties and tribunals, and reinterpretations of existing law. (The TWAIL – Third World Approaches to International Law – scholars have begun this, critiquing how international law must address historical injustice in climate context (International Investment Law and Climate Justice: The Search for a Just Green Investment Order by Olabisi D. Akinkugbe, Adebayo Majekolagbe :: SSRN).) By providing robust theoretical underpinnings and addressing counterarguments (like concerns about feasibility or state consent), scholars can validate the manifesto’s ideas within the mainstream.

• Curriculum Change: Law schools around the world should integrate climate justice into their programs. A new generation of lawyers should be trained to think of themselves as “planetary lawyers” in addition to representatives of national or corporate interests. Moot courts and model UNs can simulate climate tribunals. The more young lawyers and diplomats are steeped in these ideas, the more they will carry them into government and international organizations.

• Expert Task Forces: Establish interdisciplinary task forces (legal experts, scientists, economists) to draft detailed blueprints for specific proposals – e.g., a model Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Treaty, or a draft amendment to the Rome Statute for ecocide. These serve as concrete templates that can be picked up when political opportunity arises. For example, having a well-vetted definition of ecocide (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian) and implementation plan makes it easier for a sympathetic state to formally propose it at the ICC Assembly of States Parties.

2. Influencing Policymakers and Diplomats: Change at the international level ultimately requires states (or groups of states) to champion new rules. Here’s how to push them:

• Climate Progressive Coalitions: Work with climate-vulnerable countries (like the Alliance of Small Island States, Least Developed Countries group) and progressive allies (such as some EU countries, New Zealand, Costa Rica, etc.) to form a “Climate Justice League” – an alliance that will introduce and support bold proposals in forums like the UN General Assembly, UNFCCC, and others. These countries have moral authority; for instance, Vanuatu and Tuvalu spearheaded the ICJ advisory opinion move (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases) and Fossil Fuel Treaty call (Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative - Wikipedia). Leveraging their leadership, the alliance can table resolutions: perhaps a UNGA resolution declaring a global climate emergency and calling for negotiations on a climate justice pact.

• Engage Emerging Powers: Major emitters like China, India, and Brazil are crucial. They have their own equity concerns. Emphasize to them that climate justice realism addresses their historical grievances (colonial emissions, space for development) while also requiring them to take leadership commensurate with their current capabilities. Diplomacy should frame proposals not as Western imposition but as a joint project to rewrite rules more fairly. For example, India might warm to the idea of climate reparations for its communities and support for its renewable expansion, in exchange for gradually curbing coal – if it sees former colonizers also doing their part robustly.

• City and Subnational Diplomacy: Many cities (e.g. C40 network) and states/provinces (like California) are ahead of their national governments in climate ambition. They can be norm entrepreneurs. City networks could issue their own Climate Justice Charter aligning with this manifesto and press national governments to follow suit. Subnational success stories (like aggressive emissions cuts or just transition programs) provide proof of concept that can convince national policymakers that bold action is doable.

• Integrate into Existing Negotiations: There are ongoing relevant processes – e.g., discussions on the Global Stocktake under Paris, or the UNFCCC’s Global Goal on Adaptation, or the design of the Loss & Damage Fund. Advocates within those talks can inject climate justice realism concepts (for instance, push the Stocktake to formally include historical responsibility analysis ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ), or argue that the Loss & Damage fund operationalization should legally formalize contributions by high-emitters). By mainstreaming our ideas into the incremental progress being made, we pave the way for bigger leaps.

• Use of UN General Assembly Special Sessions: A world summit on climate justice and international law could be convened. This high-profile event (perhaps on the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, linking human rights and climate) would gather leaders to commit to the manifesto principles. Even symbolic endorsements can later be translated into legal texts.

3. Mobilizing Civil Society and Grassroots Movements: Perhaps the most vital driver is people power – the movements that demand change and shift the Overton window of political possibility.

• Amplify the Narrative: Activist networks (like Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, Climate Action Network) should explicitly adopt the language of climate justice realism. Slogans and messaging can popularize concepts: e.g., “Planet over Sovereignty,” “Make Ecocide a Crime,” “Climate Courts Now,” “Fossils = Past, Justice = Future.” As these ideas permeate protests, art, and social media, they create public expectations that leaders must respond to. The narrative should link climate justice to everyday justice – explaining that it’s about holding bad actors accountable and securing a livable future for all, not some abstract legal exercise.

• Grassroots Litigation and Petitions: Around the world, communities can file legal actions that push the envelope. Each successful case (or even well-publicized unsuccessful one) builds pressure. For instance, youth plaintiffs have sued governments for violating their rights by inadequate climate policy (as seen in Juliana v. US, or youth cases in Germany, etc.). Similarly, communities in the Niger Delta could sue oil majors in their home courts for environmental devastation – some have won verdicts in European courts holding Shell liable for Nigerian spills. These cases put a human face on climate injustice and can spur legislative changes. They also lay groundwork for the idea of international redress if domestic avenues fail.

• Campaign for Specific Reforms: NGOs and citizens can campaign for their governments to endorse specific proposals – e.g., sign a pledge to negotiate a Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Treaty, or support the ecocide amendment. Much like the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) successfully lobbied for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by getting cities and parliaments on board, a coalition could campaign for a Climate Justice Treaty. Public petitions, referenda, and demonstrations aimed at decision-makers can tip the balance. Already, over 1,000 jurisdictions have declared a “Climate Emergency” – these declarations should be leveraged to say: if it’s an emergency, we need emergency law and justice.

• Connect Movements: Importantly, climate justice should connect with allied movements – human rights, indigenous rights, racial justice, economic justice. For example, the call for climate reparations intersects with calls for reparations for colonialism and slavery; these movements can support each other, highlighting how historical exploitation and present inequities are part of a continuum (Climate Justice as Climate Reparations - JSTOR Daily). Labor unions are key too: framing the just transition in terms of good green jobs can win labor support and defuse opposition. A broad coalition that includes youth, workers, frontline communities, and progressive businesses will be harder to ignore.

4. Leveraging Moments of Crisis and Political Change: Lastly, be ready to seize opportune moments. Crises often precipitate leaps in international cooperation (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis led to G20 reforms). Unfortunately, climate-related disasters will likely escalate – each provides a grim but potent catalyst to demand “never again” and implement stronger measures. Advocates should be prepared with proposals ready when political leaders seek solutions in the wake of a calamity. Moreover, leadership changes (a new government more sympathetic to climate justice) can be windows to push through ideas that were previously blocked.

For instance, if a blocking power like the United States or Brazil undergoes an administration change to a greener leadership, immediately present them with this manifesto as a roadmap they can champion internationally. Use major summits (COPs, G7, G20) when climate rises on the agenda to secure joint statements that edge towards our goals.

In sum, the roadmap is a multi-level campaign: intellectual groundwork, diplomatic initiative, public mobilization, and opportunistic action. Each realm reinforces the others – scholarly legitimacy gives cover to policymakers; activist pressure emboldens diplomats; court victories embolden protesters, and so on.

The vision of climate justice realism transforming international law is ambitious, but not utopian. We have mapped out realistic steps and drawn analogies to past successes in international cooperation. It will require perseverance. As with human rights or decolonization, there will be resistance, especially from those profiting off the status quo (some petrostates and fossil corporations). But the tide of necessity and justice is rising faster than sea levels.

The key is to never let climate justice be dismissed as a fringe idea; it must become the mainstream demand. When enough people – and enough nations – see that their very survival and dignity depend on changing the rules of the global game, change will come. This manifesto is a rallying point and a blueprint for that change.

VI. Manifesto Conclusion and Draft Legal Provisions

The climate crisis imposes a radical imperative: humanity must unite to protect our common home and to rectify the wrongs that have left some bearing more of the climate burden than others. Climate justice realism is about meeting this imperative with eyes wide open – acknowledging political realities and historical injustices, yet refusing to be paralyzed by them. Instead, we harness law as a tool for sweeping, but achievable, change.

This manifesto has laid out the ethical basis and practical plan for overhauling international law. To conclude, we crystallize the vision into a few clear, foundational commitments that could appear in a new international instrument (be it a UN General Assembly Resolution, a multilateral treaty, or amendments to existing treaties). These draft provisions illustrate the concrete expression of our ideas:

Article 1 – Climate Emergency and Supremacy of Global Interests: States hereby acknowledge that climate change constitutes an unprecedented threat to the stability of nations, the survival of peoples and ecosystems, and the rights of present and future generations. In addressing this threat, the protection of the global climate system shall be a fundamental objective of international law and policy, taking precedence, in case of conflict, over individual State claims of absolute sovereignty (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World). States accept a duty to cooperate in good faith, urgently and effectively, to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Article 2 – Obligations to Mitigate and Leave Fossil Fuels Undisturbed: All Parties shall take immediate action, in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly to reach global carbon neutrality by mid-century or earlier. Parties shall not approve or finance any new fossil fuel extraction projects after the adoption of this instrument, and shall progressively phase out existing fossil fuel production and consumption according to an agreed equitable schedule. Recognizing that some Parties have contributed disproportionately to climate change and reaped benefits therefrom, those Parties shall take the lead in emission reductions and provide support to others (financial, technological) to facilitate a just transition.

Article 3 – Right to Climate Justice and Redress: Every person has the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including a safe climate. Parties commit to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights in all climate actions. Parties further recognize that communities and countries injured by the impacts of climate change, or by historical exploitation of their resources contributing to climate change, have a right to redress. Accordingly, Parties establish a Climate Reparations & Resilience Fund to provide prompt financial support for: (a) losses and damages caused by climate change in particularly vulnerable developing countries (What you need to know about the COP27 Loss and Damage Fund); (b) adaptation projects and resilient infrastructure in those countries; and (c) just transition efforts (alternative livelihoods, economic diversification, remediation of environmental damage in fossil fuel extraction areas) in developing countries that curtail fossil fuel development for the global good.

Article 4 – International Legal Accountability: Parties agree that no entity shall evade accountability for conduct that severely harms the Earth’s climate system. (1) A Party that by action or omission fails to meet its climate protection obligations under international law bears responsibility to all other Parties and may be subject to remedial measures determined through agreed procedures. (2) The “no-harm” rule is affirmed: Parties shall ensure that activities under their jurisdiction do not cause significant damage to the climate or environment of other States or areas beyond national jurisdiction (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World). (3) An International Climate Justice Tribunal is hereby established (Annex I to this instrument) to adjudicate disputes related to climate obligations and to assess claims for compensation by Parties suffering transboundary climate harm. The Tribunal’s decisions shall be binding upon Parties to a dispute. (4) Parties shall cooperate to develop and adopt an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (or an optional protocol) to recognize ecocide – the widespread, severe or long-term destruction of ecosystems – as a crime under international law (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian). Individuals, including corporate executives and public officials, who commit or authorize acts of ecocide, particularly those contributing to climate catastrophe, shall be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment.

Article 5 – Trade and Finance Measures: Parties undertake to align trade and investment regimes with climate objectives. Measures taken by Parties to fulfill their climate obligations – including border carbon adjustments, subsidies for renewable energy, or regulations to phase out fossil fuels – shall be presumptively consistent with international trade and investment law. No Party shall invoke any trade or investment agreement to challenge another Party’s bona fide climate policies. Parties further agree to negotiate, within the WTO and other fora, improved rules to facilitate sustainable trade and prohibit subsidies that promote greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, international financial institutions and funds governed by Parties shall integrate climate justice criteria into lending and grants, prioritizing support for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries and refraining from supporting fossil fuel projects.

Article 6 – Public Participation and Intergenerational Equity: Decisions under this instrument and related agreements shall be made with transparency and participation. Indigenous peoples, youth representatives, and civil society from all regions shall have the right to be consulted and to provide input in international climate decision-making processes. A Commissioner for Future Generations shall be appointed to advise the Parties, ensuring that long-term impacts on coming generations are considered in every major decision. Parties acknowledge an obligation to future generations to conserve the climate system, and thus commit to periodically update their actions and this framework in light of best available science, strengthening measures as needed to safeguard the future.

Article 7 – Entry into Force and Progressive Development: This manifesto treaty shall enter into force with the deposit of instruments of ratification by X States accounting for Y% of global GHG emissions, signifying a coalition ready to lead. Parties encourage all States to join, noting that the provisions herein represent evolving norms of customary international law reflecting the gravity of the climate emergency. The Parties shall meet annually to review implementation, address emerging challenges (such as climate-induced displacement or geoengineering governance), and adopt protocols for specific issues (including detailed phase-out schedules, technology sharing arrangements, and emergency response coordination). Amendments to strengthen commitments can be adopted by a qualified majority vote of the Parties, given the urgency (derogating from the traditional consensus rule by agreement of the Parties to this clause).

(The above are illustrative provisions condensing our proposals. In practice, a negotiated text would flesh out specifics and annex technical details. But these articles capture the spirit: binding emission phase-outs, enforceable justice mechanisms, integrated trade adjustments, and new institutions for accountability.)

( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ) Colonial-era emissions data reveal how historical injustices shape today’s climate responsibilities. In this chart, colonial powers’ share of cumulative CO₂ emissions (red+light blue) is significantly higher once emissions from their former colonies are reallocated to them – underscoring the need for historical accountability in climate action ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ) ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ).

The journey to such a treaty or comprehensive reform will be challenging. Yet, the alternative – sticking with the status quo – is not only morally indefensible but existentially disastrous. The climate crisis will not wait for slow evolution of norms; we must propel the law into the future we want. This manifesto and draft outline a roadmap to a future where international law is a guardian of the climate and a vehicle for justice, not an obstacle.

Let this document be a clarion call: to lawyers, to leaders, to citizens – the laws of humanity must change, so that humanity (and the more-than-human world) can survive and flourish. It is time to replace “might makes right” with “right makes might” in global environmental affairs: where the right of a child to a stable climate, or a community to not be submerged, carries more weight than the privileges of a polluter or the inertia of an old norm (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World).

The decades ahead will judge our generation by whether we had the wisdom to recognize that justice for the planet is justice for people, and the courage to rewrite our rules accordingly. Through climate justice realism, we affirm that we do have that wisdom and courage – and we invite the world to join in making this vision real.

(markus-spiske-r1bs0pzlr1m-unsplash.jpg | Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences) “One World” – a slogan on a climate protest placard. It highlights the fundamental truth that underpins climate justice realism: we share one planet, one atmosphere, and a common destiny. International law must evolve beyond divisions to uphold our collective right to one livable world. (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases) (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases)

Sources:

• Akinkugbe, O.D. & Majekolagbe, A. International Investment Law and Climate Justice: TWAIL Perspective, Fordham Int’l L.J. 46, p.169 (2023) – emphasizes centering historical injustice in climate law (International Investment Law and Climate Justice: The Search for a Just Green Investment Order by Olabisi D. Akinkugbe, Adebayo Majekolagbe :: SSRN).

• Caron, D. International Environmental Law and Structural Challenges, Georgetown Envtl. L. Rev. 33, p.113 (2020) – notes that a sovereignty-based international law is inadequate for climate challenges (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World) (International Environmental Law and Climate Change: Reflections on Structural Challenges in a “Kaleidoscopic” World).

• UNSG Antonio Guterres, remarks to UN Security Council (Feb 2023) – calling climate change “an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions” and direct threat to global safety.

• UN General Assembly Res. A/RES/77/GN…, Request for ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change (29 Mar 2023) – historic consensus recognizing obligations to protect the climate and “the right to a healthy and sustainable environment” (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases) (General Assembly Adopts Resolution Requesting International Court of Justice Provide Advisory Opinion on States’ Obligations Concerning Climate Change | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases).

• Carbon Brief (Simon Evans et al., Nov 2023), Colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change – shows UK leaps from 8th to 4th largest emitter when accounting colonial emissions ( Revealed: How colonial rule radically shifts historical responsibility for climate change - Carbon Brief ), highlighting climate colonialism.

• Africa Is A Country (Uche Onyebadi, Dec 2024), Shell’s exit scam – documents Shell’s decades of impunity in Nigeria, Niger Delta as “environmental genocide” and colonial-era exploitation (Shell’s exit scam) (Shell’s exit scam).

• NPR (Juliana Kim & Michael Copley, Sept 2023), California sues Big Oil for decades of deception – lawsuit alleging oil majors knew the truth but lied, seeking funds for climate damages (California sues oil giants, claiming they downplayed climate change for decades : NPR) (California sues oil giants, claiming they downplayed climate change for decades : NPR).

• Guardian (Haroon Siddique, June 2021), Legal experts draw up definition of ecocide – proposes adding ecocide (“wanton acts causing severe, widespread or long-term damage”) as a crime, first new international crime since Nuremberg (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Legal experts worldwide draw up ‘historic’ definition of ecocide | Climate crisis | The Guardian).

• Oxford Sustainable Law/Smith School (Mar 2023 press release) – urges the ICC to treat severe environmental harm as possible crimes against humanity, noting “impunity must end” for acts causing significant human suffering via environmental damage (The International Criminal Court must advance justice for environmental crimes | Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment) (The International Criminal Court must advance justice for environmental crimes | Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment).

• SEI (2020), Equity, Climate Justice and Fossil Fuel Extraction – argues for phasing out extraction fastest in rich economies and that poorer nations can demand support for transition.

• WTO/Climate analysis (Scott et al., 2022), Carbon Import Fees and the WTO – notes recent WTO panels suggest climate change could be deemed an “emergency in international relations” allowing broad climate-motivated trade measures.

• Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative (2022) – campaign supported by 15 countries, WHO, European Parliament etc., calling to “stop fossil fuel exploration and expansion and phase-out existing production in line with Paris goals, while supporting a just transition” (Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative - Wikipedia).

• Rockhopper v. Italy arbitration (ICSID, 2022) – tribunal awarded ~€190 million against Italy for banning oil drilling to protect its coast, highlighting conflict between investment law and climate action.

• Global Witness/UNEP (2023) on Loss & Damage fund – explains new fund to assist vulnerable countries in bearing costs of climate-induced disasters (How does the loss and damage fund work for climate justice?) (COP28 agrees to establish loss and damage fund for vulnerable ...).

• Miscellaneous: MIT Climate Portal – confirms Paris Agreement has no hard enforcement (How are countries held accountable under the Paris Agreement? | MIT Climate Portal); etc.

(All citations in text marked with 【 †】 refer to these and other sources to substantiate facts and quotes.)