“The climate verdict” on fossil fuels: enforcement impossible cancellation

The upcoming third issue of the HSE University Journal of International Law for 2025 will feature an article by Ivan Gudkov and Mark Entin “The climate verdict” on fossil fuels: enforcement impossible cancellation.

This article describes that over the past five years, the world has witnessed a creeping, fundamental reform of the international climate protection regime, following the “green energy revolution” scenario (an accelerated transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources by 2050). This has now been recognised by the International Court of Justice, which issued an advisory opinion in July 2025, expressing an unprecedentedly negative attitude toward fossil fuels. These universal climate standards have the potential to facilitate the practical implementation of the “green energy revolution” scenario. By raising the risk of legitimate discrimination against fossil fuels, they lay the regulatory framework for the transition of the global economy to a new technological order, with a redistribution of the balance of geopolitical and geoeconomic forces in the world. The repeal or modification of universal climate standards reflecting the “green energy revolution” scenario would require the immediate, legally justified dismantling of the consensus that frames these standards, in order to clear the way for the advancement of alternative global “green transition” scenarios. It is concluded that the “decision fork” facing the international community on the eve of the 30th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change includes: (1) agreeing to the inevitability and irreversibility of the global “green energy revolution” scenario, accepting all its attendant risks and imbalances, or (2) initiating the reformation of this scenario at the international level. The third way — ignoring universal standards that reflect the ideology of the “green energy revolution” while simultaneously constructing national standards that contradict them — is a counterproductive strategy, since legally silence will be equated with consent, and the materialization of risks arising from the inconsistency of national regulations with universal standards will only be a matter of time.

We invite readers to read the article (in Russian) before the issue is published.

Authors' information:

Ivan V. Gudkov — candidate of sciences in law, associate professor of the department of legal regulation of the fuel and energy complex, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia

Mark L. Entin — doctor of sciences in law, professor, head of the department of integration law and human rights, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia