The Advisory Opinion recognises climate change as a human rights issue but overlooks children – despite their advocacy and existing jurisprudence. A missed opportunity for those who will inherit today’s inaction.
Missed opportunity in a landmark ruling
The recent ICJ Advisory Opinion on climate change marks important progress, recognising climate change as a human rights issue, highlighting the plight of vulnerable populations, and reaffirming states’ obligations to act. Many commentators have rightly celebrated these legal and symbolic gains, noting their potential to strengthen global climate accountability. Yet, amid this momentum, one group remains largely invisible: children. This omission is striking, given the disproportionate impact of climate change on children and their significant advocacy during the proceedings. Despite substantial engagement and significant jurisprudence, children’s rights were left on the margins of a landmark human rights ruling.
Children’s rights: rendered invisible
Disappointingly, the Opinion mentions children only in passing, grouping them within a broad category of ‘vulnerable persons’ without any tailored analysis of their specific rights or needs. There is no engagement with established children’s rights jurisprudence, such as the Sacchi et al. v. Argentina case before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which directly addressed jurisdictional aspects of states’ climate obligations towards young people. Nor does it reference the Committee’s General Comment No. 26 on Children’s Rights and the Environment with a Special Focus on Climate Change. This lack of recognition is particularly stark given the visibility of children in global climate justice movements and the extensive advocacy presented to the Court. In sidelining these perspectives, the Opinion misses an opportunity to affirm children’s unique legal protections.
Why this matters: children were at the heart of this movement
Children were not merely the subjects of this movement – they were among its architects. From school strikes to courtroom interventions, young people’s energy, commitment, and moral clarity were central to the campaign that supported this Advisory Opinion request. Numerous consultations and civil society submissions intentionally included children’s voices, recognising their lived experience and their capacity to articulate the urgency of the climate crisis. Far from being passive victims, children acted as informed, engaged contributors to a global legal effort. Yet, in the Court’s final reasoning, their rights and perspectives vanish, leaving a troubling gap between participation and recognition.
Children’s rights and climate change: a growing jurisprudence
Over the past decade, children’s rights have become an increasingly prominent strand in the global climate change discourse. The CRC’s 2016 Day of General Discussion first placed environmental issues firmly on its agenda, paving the way for more targeted interventions. In the landmark Sacchi et al. v. Argentina petition brought by 16 children, the CRC found that states have extraterritorial responsibilities related to carbon pollution. General Comment No. 26
established a comprehensive interpretation of children’s rights in relation to the environment, and is the first – and so far only – Treaty Body General Comment to recognise the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Despite this rich jurisprudence, the ICJ Advisory Opinion makes no meaningful reference to children’s rights. This silence is striking given the Court’s reliance on other human rights instruments and precedents, raising the question of why such a developed area of law was overlooked.
A comparative glimpse: the Inter-American Court got it right
A useful comparison comes from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), whose recent Advisory Opinion on the environment and human rights took a markedly different approach. That Court explicitly referenced Sacchi and engaged directly with children’s rights, recognising their distinct vulnerabilities and agency. Several factors may explain this contrast: the Inter-American Commission and civil society actors may have foregrounded children’s rights more prominently, and the Court itself has a tradition of progressive interpretations that prioritise vulnerable groups. The CRC Committee’s jurisprudence on extraterritorial jurisdiction in Sacchi built on the IACtHR’s earlier Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 requested by Colombia.
Missed opportunities in the ICJ Opinion
The ICJ’s Opinion contains several points where children’s rights could have been meaningfully integrated, but were not. In discussing extraterritorial jurisdiction – a core issue in Sacchi
– the Court missed the chance to reference how children’s rights bodies have addressed cross-border climate obligations. Its recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment could have been deepened by acknowledging its particular significance for children’s development. Most notably, the Court overlooked children’s agency, framing them only as recipients of protection rather than as active rights-holders.
Was this the fault of the submissions? Not entirely
A review of the written submissions to the ICJ shows that several states did place children’s rights arguments before the Court. Countries including Albania, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Portugal, Sierra Leone and Tonga drew on General Comment No. 26 to highlight climate change’s impact on children’s rights under the CRC, with Portugal also citing the General Comment’s explicit recognition of the autonomous right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
States such as Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu referenced the Sacchi
decision to stress collective responsibility, while Solomon Islands and the Organisation of African Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) highlighted heightened obligations towards children. Germany and New Zealand disagreed with the CRC Committee’s interpretation of extraterritorial obligations, but the breadth of references shows that the ICJ was not without material to work with.
Sidelining those who need it the most
The ICJ Advisory Opinion will rightly be remembered as a milestone in recognising climate change as a human rights issue. Yet its silence on children’s rights leaves a glaring gap in an otherwise progressive text – especially given the jurisprudence and advocacy that children’s rights discourse has contributed to this field. This has sidelined those who will inherit the consequences of today’s inaction.