Here's the address that the op's erroneous post is referencing.
What the address is about is international courts and their possible response and role with respect to climate change.
In the modern global era it's more like Australia and Japan in international court over "Scientific Whaling".
The role of a court in settling argument over what is scientifically provable (facts) and what is opinion.
similar disputes around fisheries in general and whether one country has claim against another.
Separating scientific opinion from fact.
It's more like whether or not it's legal to conduct nuclear warfare. If so, under what circumstances.
It's more like if a river passes through a number of countries does the downstream country have redress to the upstream country for any action that is detrimental to the downstream country.
So with the climate change topic if member countries agree on a specific target and those targets aren't met by a member country could there be a judicial determination in court.
The speaker was suggesting that the ICJ would be able to issue an advisory position if it so chose, suggesting that if there are provable adverse effects from climate change a framework needs to be constructed and rules formulated around burden sharing, (especially if, as we have seen with wars, mass migration of citizens occurs.)
