Do I Need My Monocle to Read World Law?Why the ICJ’s Climate Change Opinion Proves We Need a New Baseline for Global Judicial Communication
Introduction: Not Just a Personal Problem
After reviewing the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Advisory Opinion in Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (General List No. 187, 23 July 2025)—a document spanning more than 100 pages—I was struck not simply by its daunting length, but by its impenetrable style and structure. The ruling is so internally cross-referenced and packed with doctrinal jargon that, for anyone outside a small fraternity of international law specialists, it is not worth reading for practical guidance. This is not merely a matter of personal taste—it is, I argue, a serious institutional flaw with real consequences for the legitimacy of world law.
What is most remarkable, and troubling, is that the ICJ is not required by its Statute or Rules to write this way. The Court has almost complete discretion—so its choice to produce sprawling, inaccessible orders is entirely cultural, not the result of external legal constraint. If global law is to have public force in the twenty-first century, that needs to change.
There Is No Requirement for Accessible or Structured Opinions
Unlike many domestic legal systems, where appellate judges must recite the facts, present issues, and deliver holdings with sufficient clarity for public and party understanding, the ICJ enjoys “full powers” over both the structure and style of its opinions. The Statute of the ICJ requires an operative clause to be read in open court and allows for the attachment of separate or dissenting opinions, but it imposes no order, length, or plain-language requirements on the majority’s text. The Rules of Court also decline to specify any template for presenting findings, law, or reasoning.
In practice, this means:
No obligation for a plain-language summary.
No requirement to organize content for navigability.
No rule that every legal assertion must be directly sourced.
No thematic roadmap for readers.
This is not a minor gap: it is the enabling condition for the kind of complexity and opaqueness that the Court routinely produces.
Opacity Versus Clarity in Landmark Judgments
The ICJ’s climate change opinion exemplifies how legal reasoning can become inaccessible. To extract what nation states are specifically required to do, readers must sift through a labyrinthine, seven-page table of contents, generic legal sections, and hundreds of paragraphs filled with extensive factual background and redundancy. The answer to the General Assembly’s main question—buried as the “operative clause” at paragraph 457—only appears after dense analysis and in language reminiscent of treaty recitals. Even key legal assertions, such as the statement that “every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State,” are presented without clear citation to controlling authority.
Yet this opacity is not inevitable. By contrast, in Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court delivered a concise, 4,100-word opinion whose memorable core holding—“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”—is widely recognized and accessible. The world’s most urgent opinion on climate law, in stark contrast, is mired in bureaucratic indexing and doctrinal obscurity, forcing readers to navigate technical complexity for a conclusion that remains elusive and abstract.
Legitimacy in the AI Era: If Law Is Opaque, Who Is It For?
This is not about convenience for lawyers or the comfort of laypeople. In the age of AI—when documents can be summarized and translated instantly—length and complexity are not evidence of seriousness; they are choices. Today, clarity, structure, and transparent sourcing are the minimum for legitimacy in world law.
When only insiders can decipher the Court’s reasoning, the law shifts from public guidance to a priestly ritual—walled off from scrutiny and immune to challenge. In the context of climate change—an existential crisis whose outcome depends on the participation of billions—an unreadable opinion is one that risks irrelevance.
Perhaps this persistent opacity marks an old guard unwilling to adapt—clinging to traditions in an era that demands accessibility. But our world has changed. We, the new generation of legal experts, demand law crafted for engagement, transparency, and universal comprehension. World law must meet the public where it is—not hide behind jargon and labyrinths.
No Rule Prevents Change—So the ICJ Must Innovate
No rule prevents the ICJ from drafting concise, navigable, public-facing opinions, which could include:
Short, plain-language executive summaries (even a dedicated 2-page section).
Thematic, action-oriented headings mapped to concrete questions and findings.
Direct citation for every major legal assertion (not just internal cross-references).
A “bottom line” conclusion—not just a long build to an “operative clause” buried in a final paragraph.
Machine-readable versions and supporting Q&A for the AI age.
These are not frills—they are the minimum standard for a world court that seeks respect and authority on any global issue.
Conclusion: The Time Has Come for a New Baseline
After reviewing the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion, I see a court choosing opacity because no one requires it to do otherwise. But the cost of that choice is paid by everyone who should have a say in world law.
If global justice is truly for the world, the world’s court must choose to lead, not just in law, but in communication. This is not a call for mere editorial tidiness. It is a challenge to an institution that wants world influence to meet the world’s need for clarity, transparency, and accessible authority.
If you want the world to trust world law, do not write for the monocled few—write for the public it claims to serve.
