The Court of the Citizens of the World – Ecocide Tribunal: Judgment in the People vs. the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina and Decision on Indictment Confirmation in the Prosecutor vs. Jair Messias Bolsonaro (Part II)

[Kevin Bell is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) and Adjunct Professor at Monash University. 

Goran Lambertz is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of Sweden and former Chancellor of Justice of Sweden.]

Introduction

‘The Court of the Citizens of the World organized by the Cinema for Peace Foundation, sat as an Ecocide Tribunal in Berlin, Germany, during 16-19 February 2026, to hear witnesses and receive documentary evidence. The Prosecution team included Marc Willers KC (UK), Elise Groulx (France/UK), and Marine Izquierdo (France). Because the respondent States, and the accused individual, failed to respond to notice, the Court assigned Gabriel Vincent Tese (US) and Kirsty Sutherland (UK) to represent their interests. The tribunal consisted of five judges: Stephen Rapp (US) presiding, Kevin Bell (Australia), Goran Lambertz (Sweden), Milena Sterio (US/Serbia), and Bhavani Fonseka (Sri Lanka). 

This proceeding involved two distinct cases, heard by the same panel of five judges. The first is based on a civil complaint filed by the Prosecutor on behalf of the People of the World against five States for breach of their obligations under international law as to climate change. The second is based on a proposed criminal indictment filed by the Prosecutor against an individual for international crimes relating to environmental destruction in the Amazon basin of Brazil.

The five judges came to a decision on the civil claims and on the application to confirm the criminal indictment, unanimously as to the relief sought, except that one judge separately concurred, providing different reasoning as to the civil claims.

The opinions of the five judges will be published in three posts, of which this is second (see part I and part III). All of the opinions were delivered orally in Court on 19 February 2026 and have been edited for this publication.

Alleged Breaches of State Obligations by Kevin Bell and Goran Lambertz

Kevin Bell, Judge (Australia):  

The People’s civil complaint contends that the five respondent States are bound by general international legal obligations in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change which they have violated. In my opinion these contentions have been established. I concur in the opinion of Judge Lambertz as to what these obligations specifically entail, the remedies that should be granted and the orders that should be made. I also concur in the opinion of Judge Rapp, the Presiding Judge, Judge Sterio and Judge Fonseka with respect to other issues in the civil and criminal cases. 

International Legal Obligations of States

As counsel for the People contend, the international legal obligations of the respondent States may be ascertained by reference to the unanimous decision of the judges of the International Court of Justice (‘the ICJ’) in the Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change dated 23 July 2025 (‘the Advisory Opinion’). This Advisory Opinion was given in response to a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 29 March 2023 which requested that the ICJ (among other things) identify ‘the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations.’

Consistently with other decisions of courts of high international authority, the ICJ decided and I respectfully agree that States have obligations erga omnes under international law in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change under three categories: (1) climate change and related treaties; (2) customary international law; and (3) international human rights law.

Climate Change and Related Treaties

The ICJ identified several treaties imposing obligations on State parties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment. It referred particularly to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. As regards the Paris Agreement, the ICJ decided that State parties are obliged to limit the global average temperature increase by comparison with pre-industrial levels to 1.5°C. It decided that State parties were obliged to exercise due diligence and employ their best efforts using all means at their disposal to perform this obligation and related obligations in other treaties.

The respondent States except the USA are State parties to the Paris Agreement and therefore are bound by these obligations. The USA is bound by like obligations under the other two categories of international legal obligation. 

Customary International Law

Customary international law arises under international law applying generally to States whether they are parties to treaties or not. Applying the proper principles for determining the question, the ICJ decided that all States have an obligation under customary international law to prevent significant harm to the environment. 

The ICJ decided that States have an obligation of due diligence to meet this obligation, which is a stringent standard. This means that a State must ‘use all means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in its territory or, in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State.’ 

The ICJ decided that, to determine whether a State has exercised this due diligence, it is necessary to consider several matters. These include whether the State has adopted appropriate measures and has considered scientific and technological information. To adopt appropriate steps means that the State must ‘put in place a national system, including legislation, administrative procedures, and an enforcement mechanism necessary to regulate the activities in question and … to exercise adequate vigilance to make such a system function efficiently, with a view to achieving [the objective of preventing environmental harm].’ 

The ICJ also decided that States are under an obligation to cooperate with each other to achieve protection of the environment, and for developed States to assist less developed States in this regard. 

International Human Rights Law

As the ICJ decided, climate change undermines the enjoyment of all human rights. These include the right to life, the right to health, the right to water, the right to an adequate standard of living including housing, and the right to privacy, family and home. The ICJ specifically referred to the way in which climate change undermines the enjoyment of human rights by women, children and Indigenous communities. 

The ICJ decided that the interdependence between human rights and the protection of the environment resulted in a human right to a clean, health and sustainable environment which is inherent in other human rights. Therefore, States have obligations under international human rights law to respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.  

Violation by Respondent States of their International Legal Obligations 

Counsel for the People contended that the respondent States have violated these international legal obligations in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change by (a) failing to adopt appropriate, substantial, rapid and sustained measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions; (b) failing to regulate the emission of GHG by both private and public actors within their jurisdiction; and (c) failing to provide adequate international cooperation and/or climate finance to assist vulnerable States and communities to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. I accept this submission.

Counsel for the States accepted that global warming was occurring but relied on physics-based scientific evidence disputing a causal link between increasing carbon dioxide (‘CO2’) levels and that warming. In essence, Counsel contended that it was not established that global warming was due to anthropogenic causes. I do not accept this submission.

Many courts and tribunals of high international and national standing have carefully examined the climate science-based and other evidence and found that increased GHG production (including CO2) in the industrial era has caused global warming which is increasing and leading to catastrophic climate change. The ICJ made the same finding in the Advisory Opinion, accepting the evidence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that ‘[h]uman activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming’. I find that the climate science-based and other evidence in the present case establishes that global warming is due to anthropogenic causes, principally increased GHG production, including CO2. The three other judges and I respectfully disagree with the opinion of Judge Lambertz on this issue.

Counsel for the People relied on the inadequacy of the States’ efforts to prevent and mitigate climate change as evidenced by the Climate Action Tracker, which was explained in detail in the evidence of Jan Burck, Senior Advisor at Germanwatch e. V. I accept this evidence, which establishes that the States have not exercised due diligence and employed their best efforts using all means at their disposal to perform their international legal obligations in respect of the environment to prevent and mitigate climate change. Nor have they met their obligation to engage in international cooperation. These failures constitute international wrongful acts for which the relief sought by the People as specified in the opinion of Judge Lambertz should be granted.  

Goran Lambertz, Judge (Sweden), concurring separately:

I agree with the majority’s conclusions regarding the civil complaint and with most of the analysis.

I agree with the majority’s reasoning on the question of whether the five Respondent States have breached binding commitments and on the relevance of the ICJ Advisory Opinion. I also agree with the majority’s reasoning regarding the assessment of the lack of action of the five Respondent States and their breaches of obligations under the Paris Agreement. 

However, I disagree with the majority on the question of whether the prosecutor has proven that carbon dioxide emissions in violation of the Paris Agreement have caused the damage to the earth that have come, and continue to come, with global warming. 

The question of the cause of global warming involves a decisive scientific issue: What role does the addition of carbon dioxide, and thereby the burning of fossil fuel, play for the warming of the atmosphere? The international agreements in this area are based on the premise that carbon dioxide supply is crucial. However, there is a scientific position that questions this starting point, a position which has been expressed by the defense witness in the case, Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. In his view, the supply of carbon dioxide plays a very small role for the rise in temperature, and he is therefore of the opinion that the burning of e.g. oil, coal and natural gas has no major impact on the global warming which undoubtedly occurs. 

The main argument for this scientific position is that the relationship between carbon dioxide input, on the one hand, and temperature increases, on the other, is logarithmic. This means that the effect on temperature becomes less and less with continued supply of carbon dioxide. Finally, the curve flattens out so that there is no effect at all when more carbon dioxide is added. Dr. Happer put it this way: To the extent that carbon dioxide supply warms the atmosphere, it has already had almost all the effect that it can scientifically have.

Another argument that carbon dioxide supply is not the main cause of global warming is that it has not been determined what is the cause and what is the effect between CO2 and global temperature. There is data to suggest that variation in atmospheric temperature precedes variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide content. It is generally believed that this was the connection when the earth warmed up after the last ice age some 10 000 years ago. 

But if it is not carbon dioxide that causes global warming, then it must be something else. The most likely then seems to be that we are in a long-term climate cycle similar to the cycles that have occurred in the past and where it is known that the last long ice age had its peak about 20 000 years ago. Since then, there has also been the “Little ice age” between about 800 and 200 years ago.

As to other alternative climate-impacting parameters, we have very little knowledge. The impact of clouds is probably strong, but very poorly known at both system and detail level. Ocean currents and the impact of tectonics/volcanism on the climate are poorly understood, as are solar activity and the effects of cosmic rays.

I cannot know which of the possible scientific explanations for global warming is the correct one. But I find it difficult to get past Dr. Happer’s main argument, that the relationship between carbon dioxide supply and temperature rise is logarithmic. If this is true, and I have not heard any significant objections to it, then carbon dioxide supply simply cannot be the main cause of the global warming taking place today. 

As already stated, I still share the view of the other judges on the action brought against the five Respondent States. In my opinion, they are obliged to comply with the commitments they have made in international agreements, at least as long as it is assumed that the scientific basis for these agreements is correct. 

Photo attribution: Photo by Pao Dayag on Unsplash