Practice question
A claimant argues that any cross-border environmental injury conclusively proves a breach, without examining conduct or the applicable obligation. Another argues that prevention never applies until harm actually occurs. Under the ICJ's 2025 main climate opinion, what is the better analysis?
- Every injury automatically establishes strict liability under Principle21.
- Prevention of significant harm is a due-diligence obligation of conduct and can arise where a risk of significant harm exists.
- No preventive obligation can exist before injury.
- A State's permit always proves complete compliance.
- Only the resulting monetary loss matters.
Legal references
- Stockholm Declaration, Principle21, reproduced in UN ILC report1994: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_49_10.pdf
- ICJ, Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, July23 2025, main opinion, paragraphs147–158 and precaution discussion: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.