Environmental Rights and the ICJ Advisory Opinion: Southeast Asia in Focus

About this Event

The recognition of the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment by the UN General Assembly in 2022 marked a milestone for global environmental governance. The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (ICJ AO) on climate change also provides further guidance on the scope and obligations of states under international law, with implications for environmental rights across regions.

In Southeast Asia, the ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment is anticipated to be signed by ASEAN leaders at the October 2025 Summit in Kuala Lumpur. The Declaration builds on years of work by ASEAN Member States, supported by a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) and experts. Its adoption presents both opportunities and challenges for strengthening rights-based environmental governance and advancing implementation at the national and regional levels.

Against this backdrop, this event, taking place in the margins of the 60th session of the Human Rights Council, aims to provide a platform for dialogue on advancing environmental rights in ASEAN within the context of global legal and policy developments. The Forum will explore the future of environmental rights following the forthcoming ICJ Advisory Opinion, with particular attention to ASEAN’s progress and the draft ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment.

A Forum entitled, “Environmental Rights and the ICJ Advisory Opinion in ASEAN: Global and Regional Developments“, is also taking place on 23 September 2025, from 18:30 – 20:15 CEST at Maison Internationale des Associations. This forum will continue the conversation and share global perspectives, lessons from other regions, including the Aarhus Convention, and insights on national and regional implementation.

Speakers

Rocky GUZMAN

Deputy Director, Asian Research Institute for Environmental Law (ARIEL)

Max HAN

Co-Founder & Executive Director, Youths United for Earth

Nicole PONCE

Global Advocacy Lead, World’s Youth for Climate Justice

Matthew BAIRD

Director, Asian Research Institute for Environmental Law (ARIEL) | Moderator

Highlights

Video

Live from Palais des Nations

Summary

Opening

Matthew BAIRD | Director, Asian Research Institute for Environmental Law (ARIEL) | Moderator

• The development of the Asian Environmental Rights Declaration raises interesting and challenging perspectives. The recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion on states’ obligations and rights regarding climate change also creates opportunities, as a fast-track for progress in this area.
• The ICJ’s decision, along with other recent judicial rulings—such as those from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—has produced a significant body of jurisprudence over the past year. This jurisprudence provides both procedural and substantive frameworks to drive real change for communities, Indigenous peoples, and individuals affected by climate change.
• The ICJ made it clear that climate science is settled and emphasized state liability, which could influence the behavior of polluting countries. While the practical application in domestic or international law will take years to develop, the foundation for accountability is now established.
• The session will focus on the Asian context, particularly the draft Asian Environmental Rights Declaration on the right to a clean, safe, healthy, and sustainable environment.

Introducing the Draft ASEAN Declaration

Rocky GUZMAN | Deputy Director, Asian Research Institute for Environmental Law (ARIEL)

• In Southeast Asia, the first ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment is being developed, with the ASEAN Environmental Rights Working Group working on the draft for five years. The declaration is expected to be signed by ASEAN leaders in October 2025 at the summit in Kuala Lumpur.
• Southeast Asia is a hotspot for attacks on environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs). Data from Global Witness shows about 18% of killings happen in the region, especially in the Philippines but also in Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia, along with enforced disappearances, harassment, and violence against Indigenous peoples. This situation is why a regional framework for environmental rights is needed.
• The process started in 2022 under the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. The group drew from international and regional experiences: the UNGA and UNHRC resolutions, ASEAN’s 2012 Human Rights Declaration, and rights such as clean air, safe climate, healthy ecosystems, water, sustainable food, and oceans. For procedural rights, they looked at Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, the Aarhus Convention, the Escazú Agreement, and other instruments covering access to information, public participation, justice, and protection of EHRDs.
• The working group met five times before disbanding in July 2024, when the draft—still full of brackets and disagreements—was handed to ASEAN bodies. Since then, consultations have been happening, and the leaders are expected to sign the declaration soon, though the final content is not known.
• They faced three key challenges: disagreements over content (like references to Indigenous peoples, EHRDs, and environmental impact assessments); lack of transparency and weak consultations, with drafts not shared publicly; and lack of representation, since civil society has no formal role now that the working group is disbanded.
• Despite these challenges, the declaration will be a landmark. It could push reforms in national policies, regulation, and judicial procedures to protect environmental rights and defenders.  ASEAN will hopefully ensure participation and engagement in the next steps.

Lessons from the ASEAN ICHR Process

Max HAN | Co-Founder & Executive Director, Youths United for Earth

• While policy spaces often focus on reaching the mind, stories reach the heart—and both are necessary when discussing human rights.
• The Good. The ASEAN environmental rights declaration is significant because it addresses both substantive rights (clean air, safe water, healthy ecosystems, sustainable food, and a safe, clean, healthy environment) and procedural rights (access to information, public participation, access to justice). It also draws from progressive agreements like Aarhus and Escazú. This is crucial in Southeast Asia, a resource-rich region where demand for forests, minerals, and renewable energy creates tension with the rights of local communities.
• The Bad. However, policy processes often fail to reflect the realities of communities. The two following bullet points are stories of environmental defenders:
  • Alab Mirasol from the Philippines, whose father, a peasant activist, was forcibly disappeared 22 years ago. She continues his work, reminding us that defenders are not just “activists” but also parents, children, and family members.
  • Selen Lim from Sarawak, Malaysia, who faced a $1 million lawsuit from a logging company after her indigenous group reported land rights violations. Such “SLAPP suits” aim to silence defenders.
• Southeast Asia is one of the most dangerous regions in the world for environmental defenders, with states and corporations using lawsuits, harassment, terrorism charges, and other tactics against activists. A shift in perspective is needed: by protecting those who protect the environment, we are in fact protecting the environment itself.
• The Ugly. The drafting process itself was plagued by lack of transparency, poor consultation support, and dismissals of key issues like indigenous rights. The draft shrank from 19 pages to just 4, and much of the substantive content may have been removed. Indigenous rights were especially contentious—despite being recognized internationally, some policymakers rejected the term “indigenous peoples.” Activists in the working group faced verbal abuse, intimidation, and harassment. Even as they worked on a framework to protect defenders, some defenders in Cambodia were jailed.
• Nonetheless, civil society responded with creativity and persistence. They brought in Indigenous elders, mobilized coalitions, produced their own civil society declaration, and used international and local media to push for transparency. Young people and grassroots groups carried much of the burden of consultations, often with minimal funding.
• The lessons learned are the following: Decolonization is not just rhetoric—it’s a lived struggle, especially for indigenous peoples. Policymakers need empathy and accountability, but so do advocates themselves. For Southeast Asia’s youth, this declaration is not just a policy document—it’s a generational struggle that will outlast political cycles.
• There is a need to call for solidarity: remember to defend the defenders.

Lessons from the ICJ Advisory Opinion

Nicole PONCE | Global Advocacy Lead, World’s Youth for Climate Justice

• On 23 July 2025, the Global Youth Movement and the ICJ Advisory Opinion Alliance led by the World Youth for Climate Justice and the Pacific Island students fighting climate change secured the unanimous decision from the International Court of Justice in response to their request for an advisory opinion on climate change and human rights.
• Following this historic ruling, Nicole Ponce is determined to use the advisory opinion of the ICJ and the Interamerican Court of Human Rights to advance ambitious climate action at both the regional and domestic levels through negotiations, litigation, and advocacy.
• Since 2019, when World Youth for Climate Justice first worked from the Pacific on calling for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, this moment feels like a high point. Back then, there was a consensus that decisions being made were robbing us of our future. The organization wanted to make clear that they refuse to be on the sidelines, and they refuse to be reduced to victims. While communities drown and are displaced, those most responsible and profiting continue to act as if basic human rights are optional. The message is that climate justice is not optional—it is a legal obligation. The Court reaffirmed that in its opinion.
• The question posed to the ICJ was essentially: what are the obligations and duties of states in response to the climate crisis, and what are the legal consequences? The Court gave a lot to work with:
  • It affirmed the use of best available science from the IPCC, confirmed 1.5°C as the primary temperature goal, and recognized evolving responsibilities that must factor in historical contributions and national circumstances under common but differentiated responsibilities.
  • It was strong on NDCs: they are not voluntary pledges but legal obligations. States must prepare, register, and account for them, and each must reflect the highest possible ambition and contribute adequately to achieving 1.5°C.
  • State compliance is assessed under both treaty and customary international law, covering fossil fuel production, subsidies, licensing, and impact assessments. Some failures may amount to internationally wrongful acts.
  • The Court also reaffirmed existing customary duties—preventing significant harm, due diligence, precaution, regulation of both public and private sectors, and cooperation. These obligations apply to all states, even those outside climate treaties.
  • Equally important, the Court emphasized that the environment is the foundation for human life, and protecting it is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights. That really captured what communities were saying: that these aren’t abstract legal questions but existential problems.
• Youth was not separate from the process. The Youth Climate Justice Handbook was launched, which was cited in state submissions, and voices from frontline communities into the Hague were brought through witness videos. If the Court couldn’t be brought to communities, communities were brought to the Court. That was powerful and helped the judges see the human reality behind the case.
• What does this mean for Southeast Asia? The opinion is not a silver bullet, but it strengthens the work communities and civil society are already doing. It gives leverage, an authoritative reference to demand more ambitious climate action—in policy, in litigation, in advocacy and campaigns.
• There is a need to keep unpacking the implications and figure out how to use them. But it’s already clear: the Court has said that ambition is the benchmark, and that climate justice is a legal obligation. And as we head toward COP, we should remember the Court’s reminder that COP decisions may also carry legal consequences.

Open Discussion

Francesca MINGRONE | Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law

• Something that came through clearly from all of the panelists—and that also reflects CIEL’s theory of change—is the importance of a step-by-step approach. Each achievement or outcome reached in one forum can create momentum and have positive impacts in others. It’s like putting together pieces of a puzzle, and it’s encouraging to see how the AEN process, and the declaration process more broadly, are building on other developments—such as the advisory opinion, or the recognition of the right to a healthy environment at the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.
• On that basis, since CIEL organization and many partners are based here in Geneva, what can they do from there to best support and inform the process? How can they help “nudge” policymakers in the ASEAN region toward a final text that includes key elements? What would be most useful for civil society organizations or UN bodies in Geneva to focus on? After all, Geneva organizations have many resources —the Human Rights Council, treaty bodies, special procedures, and a wide range of UN agencies and stakeholders. What should be kept in mind to be as constructive and effective as possible in supporting this process?

Nicole PONCE | Global Advocacy Lead, World’s Youth for Climate Justice

• The main point is to make sure to continue addressing some of the recurring questions, because people are now trying to nitpick the advisory opinion precisely because it’s so strong. One of the big misnomers WYCJ keeps encountering is the idea that advisory opinions are generally “non-binding.” That’s tough and it needs to be addressed with WYCJ’s partners, because it risks downplaying the strength of the AO.
• The advisory opinion is not creating new legal obligations—the ICJ was only clarifying and interpreting existing ones. And those existing obligations are binding. Therefore, it’s important to recognize and emphasize that distinction. Otherwise, states will dismiss it and say “the AO doesn’t really apply to us since it’s non-binding,” and that waters it down. We need to be ready to counter that narrative.

Max HAN | Co-Founder & Executive Director, Youths United for Earth

• International solidarity is really important, but we need to approach it carefully. One lesson is that decolonization is not a metaphor. In ASEAN, both governments and civil society can be apprehensive about engaging with foreign networks because of the region’s colonial history. ASEAN also relies heavily on EU funding, but there’s wariness about outside influence over sovereignty.
• So when we talk about support, it’s important that funding doesn’t just go to governments but also directly to civil society and communities, since they are the ones doing much of the advocacy and have the right positionality to do it.
• Another piece is connecting Southeast Asian communities with media. Local outlets are often hesitant to cover sensitive issues like human rights because of state or corporate pressure. International media—such as The Diplomat or Mongabay, or outlets in Washington, D.C.—have played a big role in elevating these issues so they’re visible when people search online.
• So the key tasks are: ensure funding reaches communities, not just governments; and build stronger connections with media, while approaching all of this with solidarity and sensitivity to the region’s history and apprehensions.

Rocky GUZMAN | Deputy Director, Asian Research Institute for Environmental Law (ARIEL)

• It is really important for ASEAN to be part of global conversations, like at the Human Rights Council. A lot is happening in Southeast Asia, but we often get stuck in what we call the “ASEAN way,” where we follow our own standards. We need to be mindful that we are part of a global community and should align with progressive global standards.

Documents

• Presentations made during the event

Links

• Human Rights and the Environment | GEN