The ICJ clarifies that state obligations related to NDCs imply due diligence standards, indicating potential consequences for non-compliance.
The ICJ found that some norms, previously thought not binding and falling under the unfettered discretion of States (e.g. the content of NDCs) are in fact binding obligations of conduct based on a due diligence standard, and their breach gives rise to state responsibility. In this blog post, I address some pertinent issues regarding due diligence as addressed by the ICJ, as well as ITLOS and the IACtHR. In particular, I focus on the relationship between obligations of result and obligations of conduct, the nature of due diligence, factors to determine its content, and the legal consequences of not acting with the required diligence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christina Voigt (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: