From The Hague to the High Court: Translating the ICJ’s Climate Duties into Directors’ Disclosure Liabilities under IFRS and UK Law
ハーグから高等裁判所へ：ICJの気候義務をIFRSおよび英国法に基づく取締役の開示責任に変換する (AI 翻訳)
Anubhuti Raje
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
2025年7月のICJ勧告的意見が気候変動リスクの予見可能性を法的に認めたことで、英国会社法やIFRSに基づく取締役の開示義務に影響を与える分析。「逆組み入れ」概念を通じて国際法上の義務が国内の受認者責任や開示義務を形作るメカニズムを明らかにし、ICJ意見が企業の気候関連開示責任を強化する可能性を示す。
English
This article analyzes how the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion on climate harm impacts directors' disclosure duties under UK law and IFRS. It introduces 'reverse incorporation' to explain how international legal obligations reshape domestic fiduciary and accounting duties. Through doctrinal analysis and litigation modeling, it shows how the opinion can establish breach, materiality, and causation in climate-related disclosure cases, making climate accountability a legal inevitability.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJが国際的な開示基準の策定を進めており、ICJ意見が直接的に日本の取締役の義務に影響するわけではないが、国際法解釈の潮流として重要。本論文の「逆組み入れ」概念は、日本企業がグローバルな開示基準に適応する際の法的リスク評価に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper bridges international law and corporate disclosure, showing how ICJ advisory opinions can harden into enforceable liabilities under IFRS and national laws. It provides a legal framework for understanding the evolving duty of care in climate-related financial reporting, critical for companies applying ISSB/TCFD standards globally.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a legal model for how international climate law translates into corporate disclosure liabilities, useful for scholars in climate law and corporate governance.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate legal and sustainability teams should consider the ICJ opinion when assessing materiality and disclosure risks in financial reporting.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators should note how advisory opinions can reshape domestic fiduciary duties, potentially guiding future disclosure mandates.
📄 Abstract（原文）
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered a landmark advisory opinion framing climate harm as a foreseeable and legally cognisable risk. Although formally directed at states, this pronouncement recalibrates the baseline of diligence in ways that extend into domestic corporate law. This article argues that the ICJ opinion collides with directors’ disclosure obligations under the UK Companies Act 2006, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and International Financial Reporting Standards (IAS 1 and IAS 37). Once the highest international court has acknowledged the foreseeability of climate risks, omission from corporate reports is not a matter of policy discretion but of legal exposure. The article develops the concept of “reverse incorporation” to explain how international legal recognition of obligations can reshape domestic fiduciary, disclosure, and accounting duties without legislative reform. Through doctrinal analysis and litigation modelling, it shows how claimants, regulators, and boards may deploy the ICJ opinion to establish breach, materiality, and causation. By tracing this migration of norms from The Hague into the UK High Court, the paper demonstrates how advisory opinions can harden into enforceable corporate liabilities, making climate accountability a legal inevitability rather than an optional governance goal.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.1053first seen 2026-06-29 08:19:01
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。