Key points from the available evidence:

• The ICJ held a private meeting with IPCC scientists just before hearings began, reflecting the Court’s view of the IPCC as the “scientific pillar” of the climate change regime1.

• This meeting was not part of the formal, public hearings and did not include scientists who dissent from the IPCC—states and organizations participating in the advisory proceedings had no opportunity to question or respond to IPCC scientists1.

• The process was criticized for lacking transparency and procedural fairness precisely because it favored a single scientific perspective (the IPCC’s), with no indication that alternative scientific viewpoints were admitted or reviewed1.

• The UN General Assembly’s request for the advisory opinion itself referenced the “utmost concern [for] the scientific consensus expressed” in the IPCC reports, reinforcing the Court’s mandate to treat the IPCC’s findings as the foundation for its analysis13.

• Available commentaries and summaries of the ICJ process do not mention any engagement with scientists or organizations disputing IPCC conclusions, nor do they report that groups like Clintel were referenced or invited as experts13.

• While the ICJ has, in rare past cases, consulted technical experts informally, in this climate case it only announced consultation with IPCC figures, reinforcing the exclusion of dissident scientific voices19.

In summary, the ICJ’s approach gave exclusive scientific authority to the IPCC and provided no forum, reference, or weight to scientists disputing its reports, such as those from Clintel13. The Court did not discuss or acknowledge the existence of such scientific disagreement in its process, instead treating the IPCC’s consensus as fact. This approach has been criticized for its lack of transparency and its failure to incorporate procedural safeguards for alternative scientific views19.

Neverthless, the ICJ AO prompted headlines like these:

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change, BBC

Legal experts say International Court of Justice ruling provides ‘a clear blueprint to hold major emitters accountable’ The Indiependent

Opened the door for countries to sue each other over impacts of climate change, phys.org

Nations Can Sue Each Other Over Climate Inaction Under International Law, Daily Guardian

Etc., Etc. Etc.

Now on May 20, 2026 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the ICJ and suggesting implementation.

UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution welcoming the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change

RESULT
In favor: 141
Against: 8
Abstain: 28

Activists gloss over the fact that neither the ICJ Opinion nor the UN Resolution are binding, even though it’s expected for them to be referenced in all the climate warfare going on now, and soon to explode.  Thus it is important to look into the vote and the implications from those who opposed, abstained, or were absent

The table below lists the Authors, those Against, Abstained, Absent and Notables Voting for: