Dataset on References to the Klimaseniorinnen Ruling in the ICJ Climate Advisory Opinion Proceedings

Dataset description
This dataset was compiled in the course of writing the chapter “The Klimaseniorinnen ruling as authority in the proceedings for the ICJ Climate Advisory Opinion”, published in Sandrine Maljean‑Dubois (ed.), Science and Expertise in Climate Litigation: Construction and Strategic Use, Brill.
The dataset identifies whether and how states and international organisations participating in the proceedings for the ICJ Climate Advisory Opinion referred to the Klimaseniorinnen judgment.

Sources and scope
The dataset draws on three categories of material from the ICJ Climate Advisory Opinion proceedings:

• Written submissions submitted by states and international organisations
• Written transcripts (comptes rendus) of the oral arguments
• Written answers to judges’ questions submitted after the hearings

Annexes to these documents are excluded. All source documents are publicly available on the International Court of Justice’s website.
The dataset covers materials submitted during both the March 2024 and August 2024 submission rounds and subsequent oral proceedings in December 2024.

Dataset content
For outputs, the dataset records:

• Whether the Klimaseniorinnen ruling is cited
• The identity of the state or international organisation
• Whether the state is a member of the Council of Europe
• For written submissions: the relevant submission round (March 2024 or August 2024)
• Whether the reference to the judgment is affirmative or dismissive
• qualitative notes on the content of the reference

File structure
The dataset is organised into Excel (.xlsx) files structured as follows:

Separate sheets for each category of output:

• Written submissions
• Oral pleadings
• Answers to judges’ questions
• Additional sheets compiling summary figures
• A consolidated sheet counting the total number of actors referring to the ruling, without duplication (a state or IO could mention the ruling several times across outputs, so duplicates had to be identified to arrive at the number of actors referring to the judgment)

Methodological notes
Classification of references (e.g. affirmative versus dismissive) reflects the author’s interpretive assessment, based on the content and context of each reference. The dataset records the presence and nature of references but does not evaluate their legal correctness or normative weight.
Further methodological detail is provided in Section II of the published chapter. The interpretation of the author of the data is the core of the published chapter.

Legal context
The Kli