Environmental law is not a monolithic undertaking but a work in progress. It evolves. Klaus Bosselmann, emeritus professor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, recounts a transformative instance at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in his 2024 paper, “Saving the Earth for Future Generations: Some Reflections.”
“In 2016, nearly 100 professors of environmental law adopted a manifesto called ‘From Environmental Law to Ecological Law’ at the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Colloquium in Oslo, Norway. The ‘Oslo Manifesto’ has since been endorsed by hundreds of environmental lawyers and environmental law organizations from around the world. It has also led to the establishment of the Ecological Law and Governance Association (ELGA) in 2017. ELGA is a global network of legal scholars, practicing lawyers, and environmental activists committed to transforming law and governance at national and international levels.
… In our current legal system, Earth has no meaning or status. … On the other hand, we all know that critical planetary systems are at risk (the atmosphere, oceans, global biodiversity). We also know that protection efforts based on negotiations between states have not worked very well. A logical step forward is, therefore, to rather than relying on political compromises between states establish trusteeship obligations of states themselves. The sovereign state is not so sovereign as to destroy ecological systems of its own territory, transboundary systems and ultimately Earth.”
Dr. Bosselmann’s article provides a concise introduction to ecological law. He points out that guidance on Earth trusteeship is set out in two agreements by civil society: the Earth 2000 Charter and the 2018 Hague Principles.
Ecological law is an emerging and more comprehensive framework. It sees Earth as a whole, comprehends the required health of ecosystems on which humans and all life depend, and acknowledges interconnectedness. This approach scrutinizes complexity and uses the methods of systems theory. It emphasizes proactive and preventive actions by anticipating problems.
The rights of nature movement is valued as an indispensable activity and as a starting point for overcoming the prevailing anthropocentric attitude. It can rescue and protect irreplaceable parts of the natural world from further destruction, especially during the transitional period, until the global shift to ecocentric laws and governance is achieved.
As a science, ecology created concepts, terminology, and tools for measurement and analysis that became milestones across disciplines. Ecology is also strategically useful to jurists.
One milestone is the “planetary boundaries” framework. It was initiated in 2009 by 28 internationally known scientists under the leadership of Johan Rockström, former director of the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University, Sweden. The model gathers knowledge and research from many fields, analyzes human activities and their impact on the Earth system, and establishes safe limits for the amount of human stress that can be applied to Earth’s critical processes. These planetary boundaries are the quantitative limits on the “nine global change processes”: climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change, freshwater change, alterations in biochemical flows, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and the introduction of novel entities.
According to the Stockholm Resilience Center, “Planetary boundaries are interdependent. … Action that affects one process … will affect the risks of the other processes. Only by respecting all nine boundaries can we maintain a safe operating space for humanity. The 2023 update concluded that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed.”
Two other concepts have also become indicators of the shift toward ecological thinking and law: earth systems science and the global commons.
Earth System Science seeks to understand how our planet, as an integrated system, functions and responds to human influence and interference, which are all too often detrimental. Earth science studies the interconnected elements of our world: the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere. It seeks to understand how these elements interact to function well as a whole. Earth science draws on essential disciplines, ranging from mathematics, chemistry, and biology to physics, to gain insights. This does not come easily. The amount of scientific knowledge has grown so large that it is difficult to keep up, even with new findings within one’s own discipline. So far, science has explored many subjects in the greatest detail. It has penetrated countless arcane puzzle pieces of the natural world. But it has also created a fragmented vision and obscured the big picture.
There is much to discover about interconnections. Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability has introduced undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs, along with several other schools, to unlock the overarching understanding required on this subject.
The idea of the global commons was reborn from very ancient notions of shared resources. After all, who can “own” the atmosphere or the high seas? Today, the global commons comprises resources not owned or controlled by any single nation. They are essential, like the very air we breathe, and include the atmosphere, oceans, Antarctica, and outer space, which are accessible to all nations.
The global commons is also under threat and out of balance. To garner support for these vital resources, the Global Commons Alliance was launched. Its website provides information on goals and activities to protect and restore the global commons.
The one aspect that stands out in all efforts to assist the planet in regaining and maintaining its well-being is the urgent need to better understand and find the proper way to collaborate with the complex, interrelated processes by which Earth functions.
The Legal and Ethical Responsibility to Protect the Planet
After hearing about the July 23, 2025, advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “This is a victory for our planet.” And so it was.
It was also a good day for the rights-of-nature movement and for the shift toward ecocentric environmental laws.
One of the functions of the International Court of Justice is that it gives “advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies of the system.”
The advisory opinions are not binding. They clarify legal questions and remove ambiguities. They do not make laws; instead, they indirectly deal with existing, possibly conflicting, piecemeal laws, which can cause confusion and foster a corresponding underworld of loopholes. Nevertheless, advisory opinions issued by the world’s highest court carry authority, legitimacy, and legal weight.
The July 23, 2025, advisory opinion on “The Obligations of States in Respect to Climate Change” resolved the largest case ever put before the ICJ. The court heard from more than 100 countries and organizations that submitted written statements and issued an advisory specifying the obligations of states regarding climate change.
The answers came bold, clear: “[I]nternational law requires states to prevent significant harm to the climate—and failure to do so can trigger legal responsibility,” stated the International Institute of Sustainable Development. This opinion received unanimous support from all 14 judges. This was powerful; it has happened only five times since the court’s founding in 1945.
In remarks before sharing the opinion, Yuji Iwasawa, ICJ President, emphasized that the climate questions raised “represent more than a legal problem. … They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperil all forms of life and the very health of our planet,” according to The Hill.
The answers given in the court’s advisory opinion open a path toward climate justice and accountability. Some key points are as follows:
- Nations have climate obligations that are not a matter of choice. Instead, they are legal, substantive, and enforceable. These duties extend to all states.
- The advisory opinion conveys a strict due diligence standard. This includes having effective national climate plans that meet the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold, supporting vulnerable nations, and regulating private actors. Failure to act may constitute an internationally wrongful act—triggering legal consequences. This can lead to paying reparations for the harms of climate change.
- Small frontline communities that cause very little harm to the environment often endure the most severe climate breakdowns created by other top-polluting countries. For the first time, they now have remedies available. The era of climate impunity is over.
The court held that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights, such as the right to life; the right to health; and the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to clean water, food, and housing.
The ICJ advisory opinion on climate will serve as a guiding document. It will be analyzed, interpreted, and cited in courts of law for years to come. For some advocates, it may be as significant as the Magna Carta in environmental law, whereas for others, it is at minimum a foundational text.
Most importantly, however, it will assist people to see that we need to collaborate and act. Climate systems do not know or care about man-made borders, political agendas, or national economies. They run and currently destroy on a planetary, transboundary scale. It is absurd for nations attempting to stand alone to face this. And pretending to withdraw from it, or from the ICJ, happens to be pointless as well.
No nation is exempt from calamity. As long as it is taking place on this planet, there is inherent participation—willingly or not. We need to work together toward restoring a beautiful, thriving Earth while there is still time.
