Category: International Law Page 1 of 11

Matters Commented On: (1) Annual Report of the Permanent Engineering Board (PEB) to the Governments of the United States and Canada under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty for the period of October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024, May 16, 2025, and (2) Flood Risk Operating Plan (FROP) for the Columbia River Treaty, June 26, 2025

PDF Version: Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) entered into force in September 1964. While the CRT has no expiry date, certain terms of the CRT, specifically the flood control provisions of the treaty, were scheduled to change automatically on the treaty’s sixtieth anniversary (September 16, 2024) in a way that would provide the United States far less certainty as to future upstream flood control operations in Canada. For this, and a number of other reasons, the US and Canada were motivated to modernize the CRT and to that end, and as highlighted in previous posts on ABlawg, the governments of Canada and the United States entered into a non-binding agreement in principle (AiP) in July 2024 outlining proposed changes to the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) (see posts on the AiP here and here).

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

By Nigel Bankes

On January 26, 2026

In Climate Change, Environmental, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

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).