Category: International Law Page 1 of 11

What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

On January 26, 2026

In Climate Change, Environmental, International Law

Case Commented On: Obligations of States In Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, July 23, 2025

PDF Version: What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

ABlawg has already published posts on constitutional climate change litigation in Canada (the La Rose case, here) as well as two posts on the important unanimous Advisory Opinion (AO) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Climate Change, here and here. This post assesses the implications of the AO for a province within the Confederation of Canada, specifically a province like Alberta which is a significant producer of carbon fuels and a significant emitter of greenhouse gases: see ECCC, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2025).

Gitxaala and the Conundrum of UNDRIP Implementing Legislation: The Sky Has Not Fallen In

By Nigel Bankes

On December 22, 2025

In Indigenous, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Gitxaala and the Conundrum of UNDRIP Implementing Legislation: The Sky Has Not Fallen In

This case, which commenced as a judicial review application, involved a challenge to the implementation and/or constitutional validity of British Columbia’s hard rock mineral regime under the terms of the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292 (MTA). The petitioners also claimed that the MTA regime was not consistent with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or UN Declaration) as required by section 3 of British Columbia’s “implementing” legislation, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44 (DRIPA). This post focuses on that aspect of the case which was the only live matter by the time the case got to the Court of Appeal. A majority of that Court found in favour of the petitioners while the dissent concluded that the matter was not justiciable.

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Reaches Canada: The Federal Court Opens Door to New Climate Claims

By Kaitlin Schaaf

On December 15, 2025

In Climate Change, International Law

By: Kaitlin Schaaf

Case Commented On: Lho’Imggin v Canada, 2025 FC 1586 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Reaches Canada: The Federal Court Opens Door to New Climate Claims

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released an Advisory Opinion (AO) on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, [2025] ICJ Rep 456. As Professor Majekolagbe pointed out in their analysis, the AO affirmed that international climate change treaties create binding obligations on states and under customary international law, states have a duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system.

Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

By Adebayo Majekolagbe

On August 15, 2025

In Climate Change, International Law

By: Adebayo Majekolagbe

Decision Commented On: Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (2025)

PDF Version: Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

Over the past decade, litigants—mainly young people—have petitioned domestic courts worldwide to assess if governments are doing enough to combat climate change. Courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America mostly responded positively, issuing directives for more ambitious climate action. Although similar cases have been brought before Canadian courts, no case has succeeded on its merits in compelling federal or provincial governments to raise the level of their climate commitments. This situation might soon change, especially with the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Agreement in Principle on a Revised Columbia River Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On July 18, 2024

In International Law, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Event commented on: Announcement of an Agreement in Principle on a Revised Columbia River Treaty, July 11, 2024

PDF Version: Agreement in Principle on a Revised Columbia River Treaty

Last week the governments of Canada and the United States announced that they had reached an agreement in principle (AiP) on a set of amendments to “modernize” the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). It has taken the parties over six years to reach this point. I have provided some background on the CRT and the launch of the renegotiation in previous ABlawg posts here and here. The parties have yet to provide the full text of the AiP but the Government of British Columbia has posted a backgrounder that summarizes the terms of the AiP as well as a useful Q & A page. Here is the text of the summary: