Recommended Citation
Matei Alexianu and Hannah Sweeney,
Participation of Non-State Actors in International Climate Change Advisory Opinions,
58 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.
593
(2026)
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol58/iss1/18
Abstract
This Article offers an analysis of the unprecedented participation of non-state actors (“NSAs”), including nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, grassroots movements, and individuals, in the three recent landmark international climate change advisory proceedings. After mapping the distinct procedural regimes of the three international fora involved, the Article catalogues the diverse avenues through which NSAs have shaped these proceedings: initiating and coordinating advisory requests, submitting written and oral arguments, supplying scientific and legal expertise, orchestrating advocacy campaigns, and mobilizing post-decision implementation. The Article then identifies the principal benefits of expanded NSA engagement—enhanced representativeness, richer technical inputs, and accelerated norm diffusion—before highlighting the associated risks of administrative overload, potential encroachment on state sovereignty, and inequality and potential bias among participating organizations. To reconcile This Article offers an analysis of the unprecedented participation of non-state actors (“NSAs”), including nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions, grassroots movements, and individuals, in the three recent landmark international climate change advisory proceedings. After mapping the distinct procedural regimes of the three international fora involved, the Article catalogues the diverse avenues through which NSAs have shaped these proceedings: initiating and coordinating advisory requests, submitting written and oral arguments, supplying scientific and legal expertise, orchestrating advocacy campaigns, and mobilizing post-decision implementation. The Article then identifies the principal benefits of expanded NSA engagement—enhanced representativeness, richer technical inputs, and accelerated norm diffusion—before highlighting the associated risks of administrative overload, potential encroachment on state sovereignty, and inequality and potential bias among participating organizations. To reconcile these tensions, the Article concludes by proposing incremental reforms by international courts, NSAs, and states.