You're Reading The ICJ Advisory Opinion Wrong
A strategic reading guide for Indigenous rights activists and advocates.
While I was visiting the Pinaul Collection at the Bourse de commerce in Paris, the ICJ dropped its Advisory Opinion.
A couple hours later, while I was sipping Matcha in their super nice restaurant, I received questions from all over the world: "What's your take on the ICJ AO?"
I ignored most, and respectfully declined some.
To be honest, the only thing I did was download it.
I also avoided people’s opinions on LinkeIn.
I avoided reading it for two reasons:
I was committed to maximizing my time with my partner in Paris. Reading a 100+ page document 5 times would definitely ruin that.
I was also deciding how I wanted to read the document.
I can hear you thinking: Enough with the drama, just read the damn thing Zali!
Hear me out.
How you read an ICJ opinion determines what you get out of it.
Read it wrong, and you'll join the chorus of Indigenous Peoples saying "Good for climate change, but it barely mentions Indigenous Peoples, so it's not that useful." Read it right, and you'll see the legal weapons it just handed you.
So, after museum hopping I decided last weekend that I didn't want to read it like a human rights document. But as strategic intelligence.
One of my takeawas: Its a strategic intelligence report disguised as legal doctrine. If you read it completely wrong, you’ll miss the most powerful parts.
Here's how I read it.
The Mistake Everyone's Making
Most of you probably CMD+F for mentions of "Indigenous Peoples" and get disappointed. The document has a handful of direct references. So you probably conclude it's not that relevant to our work.
I’d change that approach. This opinion isn't about what it says about Indigenous Peoples. It's about the legal architecture it creates that Indigenous Peoples can use.
What I believe they did, was they didn't write a human rights opinion with climate implications. They wrote a climate opinion with human rights enforcement mechanisms built in.
See the difference? The power isn't in the mentions. It's in the methodology.
How International Legal Docs Actually Work
Here's what they don't teach you about international law: The real power is never in the obvious places.
When the Court says "Indigenous Peoples have rights that must be respected in climate action," that's nice. But it's also vague and hard to enforce.
When the Court says "States must exercise stringent due diligence in all climate decisions, measured against human rights obligations," that's a weapon. Because now you can challenge the process States use to make any climate-related decision.
The first statement is aspiration. The second is enforceable obligation.
Most of you get excited about aspirations and ignore obligations. That's backwards. Aspirations get you nice speeches. Obligations get you victories.
The Three Sections That Matter Most
Skip the background. Skip the procedural stuff. Skip the general climate law exposition.
Focus on three sections:
Paragraph 224: This is where the Court shows you how COP decisions become legally binding. They use Glasgow and Dubai COP decisions to make 1.5°C the primary legal standard. This is your blueprint for making future COP decisions about Indigenous rights legally binding too.
Paragraphs 167-171: This is where the Court rejects the argument that climate law exists separately from human rights law. This integration is what makes Indigenous rights enforceable in climate contexts.
Paragraph 427: This is where the Court lists specific State actions that violate climate obligations: Fossil fuel licensing, subsidies, failures to regulate private actors. These are your litigation targets.
Everything else is context. These three sections are your tactical intelligence.
I have to caveat this by saying that there are many other takeaways. This article is focusing on just a few.
What to Look For (And What to Ignore)
Look for: Legal standards, procedural requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and government obligations.
Ignore: Aspirational language, general statements about Indigenous rights, and academic discussions of climate science.
The Court is giving you tools, not validation. You already know Indigenous rights matter. What you need is a way to make States comply with them.
Here's a simple test: If a sentence makes you feel good but doesn't tell you what you can do tomorrow, skip it. If a sentence makes you think "I could challenge this State or UN decision using this logic," highlight it.
The Reading Strategy That Works
Don't read it like a book. Read it like intelligence analysis.
Start with paragraph 427. This tells you what government actions the Court considers potentially illegal. Write these down.
Then read paragraphs 167-171. This tells you that climate law cannot be separated from other international law, including human rights law, making integrated legal challenges possible. Connect this to the actions from para 427.
Then read paragraph 224. This shows you how to use COP decisions to create binding legal interpretations. Think about how to apply this methodology to Indigenous rights.
Now you have a tactical picture: What to challenge (427), why challenges will work (167-171), and how to build stronger legal standards through future COP negotiations (224). The rest of the document is supporting evidence for these three core insights.
(Again, just one takeaway out of many)
The Questions That Guide Strategic Reading
As you read, ask these questions:
How does this create new legal obligations for States?
What State processes does this make challengeable?
How does this change what States must consider when making climate decisions?
What enforcement mechanisms does this activate?
Don't ask:
Does this mention Indigenous Peoples enough?
Does this validate our concerns?
Does this feel supportive?
The first set of questions leads to strategy. The second set leads to disappointment.
Why Most Legal Analysis Gets This Wrong
Most academics read ICJ opinions to understand what the Court thinks about specific issues. That's academic analysis.
You need strategic analysis.
Strategic analysis asks: What new capabilities does this create? What vulnerabilities does this expose in UN decision-making? How does this shift the power dynamic?
The Court doesn't care about making Indigenous Peoples feel heard. They care about clarifying legal obligations between States. But those clarified obligations happen to create new enforcement opportunities for Indigenous rights.
That's where the value is.
The Truth
At the time of writing this article I opened my LinkedIn and spent 15 minutes scrolling through several analytical posts about it.
If you go on LinkedIn, some tend to oversell the ICJ AO, ignoring the many caveats in the text. But that’s what you get from a consensus AO.
Not criticizing, just an observation. But, here's what no one posts about:
This opinion doesn't automatically change anything.
States won't read this and suddenly start respecting human rights, or Indigenous rights. The opinion creates legal tools, but tools don't use themselves.
You have to know how to deploy them strategically. You have to understand which venues will be receptive to which arguments. You have to build the political and legal pressure that makes enforcement possible.
The opinion is the ammo. You still need to know how to load the gun and where to aim it.
What This Means for You
If you're doing advocacy work, this opinion changes your entire framework.
Stop asking States to consider Indigenous rights because it's the right thing to do.
Start demanding they comply with Indigenous rights because the world's highest court says it's legally required.
Stop seeking consultation as a favor.
Start requiring consultation as due diligence.
Stop requesting inclusion in climate processes.
Start challenging exclusion as procedural violation.
The legal foundation just shifted under your feet. Your tactics need to shift with it.
Before You Go
Reading the opinion correctly is just the first step. The real work is understanding how to weaponize what you've read.
That requires strategic intelligence about how these legal tools get deployed in different forums. How do you use this in UNFCCC negotiations versus national courts versus Human Rights Council? What arguments work where? What's the sequencing that builds maximum pressure?
This opinion created the weapons. But you need the tactical manual for how to use them.
The ICJ just changed the game for Indigenous rights advocacy. But only if you know how to play it.
See you next week!
P.S.: Want more? Read my complete breakdown: How the ICJ AO Gave Indigenous Peoples Legal Weapons