Seeking Justice for Ecocide: A Conversation with Irakli Tkhilaishvili, Managing Director of the Court of the Citizens of the World

By Diana Taremwa Karakire

In an era of increasing environmental degradation and human rights violations, traditional legal systems are often unable to fully address global injustices.The Court of the Citizens of the World seeks to bridge this gap through non-binding “blueprint trials” designed to spotlight rights violations and push for accountability.

It is against this background that earlier this year the court convened an Ecocide Tribunal in Berlin from 16–19 February 2026. The tribunal examined environmental destruction in the Amazon, the responsibility of major emitting states, and the failure to uphold climate commitments such as the Paris Agreement. It also drew on the landmark 2025 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, affirming that all states have a legal duty to prevent climate harm.

In a unanimous civil judgment, the tribunal found five states including; the United States of America, Russia, Argentine Republic, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and People’s Republic of China in breach of international climate obligations. The court concluded that these states had failed to align emissions with the 1.5°C target, regulate greenhouse gas emissions,and prevent foreseeable environmental harm.

The tribunal called for stronger emissions targets, a halt to fossil fuel projects inconsistent with 1.5°C, revised national climate plans, increased climate finance, and more robust accountability mechanisms. It also warned that continued non-compliance could trigger reparation claims by affected states.

In this interview, Diana speaks with Irakli Tkhilaishvili about the tribunal’s significance, its implications for international law, and its role in advancing global climate justice.

Diana : Briefly introduce the Court of the Citizens of the World and the work you do?

Irakli: The Court of the Citizens of the World is an independent people's tribunal established by international law specialists and human rights activists. We have two main goals: to create a platform for those who have faced serious atrocities and injustice, and to demonstrate how international law should ideally function. We have already held four tribunals, covering topics such as the crime of aggression in Ukraine, human rights violations in the Uyghur community and Tibet in China, and the responsibility of social media platforms.The first tribunal focused on the crime of aggression, specifically the war waged by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. The second tribunal examined human rights violations affecting the Uyghur community and Tibet in China. The third addressed the responsibility of social media platforms in relation to human rights abuses.

The fourth and most recent tribunal was the ecocide tribunal held in Berlin.This tribunal was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of civil proceedings led by lawyer Marc Willers, and it focused on the responsibility of states. It examined breaches of the Paris Agreement and other climate-related commitments.The second part focused on the responsibility of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, particularly actions taken during his leadership in the Amazon region. These actions were linked to serious environmental harm, including deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and significant impacts on Indigenous communities.

Both parts of the tribunal concluded with a verdict delivered by the panel of judges. It is important to clarify that this verdict is not legally binding, as the tribunal is not an official court. Rather, these are “blueprint trials” designed to raise awareness and provide valuable insights for the media, the public, and human rights organisations.

The broader aim of these tribunals is to highlight gaps in formal legal systems by addressing cases that official courts are not fully able to cover. Through these proceedings, the tribunals demonstrate how justice could and should be pursued, offering a model for strengthening accountability and reforming existing legal frameworks.

Diana:How did you select the states involved in the ecocide tribunal? For instance,the United States was among those considered, yet it has exited the Paris Agreement?

Irakli: In terms of the selection process, before organizing any tribunal, we develop detailed concept notes with the support of our advisory board. This board includes distinguished legal experts such as Geoffrey Robertson and Steven Rapp. A key principle guiding our work is to focus on cases that official courts are not fully able to address.Once the concept and cases are identified, we proceed with an investigation phase. This process is admittedly limited, as we do not have access to classified information. Instead, we rely on publicly available sources, including reports from human rights organizations and credible media outlets. After gathering and analysing the evidence, we refine the concept notes and then engage highly respected legal practitioners in the relevant field such as Marc Willers.We then provide these lawyers with our findings. From that point, the lawyer takes the lead interviewing witnesses, preparing the case, and, in this instance, drafting the civil complaint.

It is also important to note that official courts are often limited in what they can address. For example, in the case of the United States and the Paris Agreement, the agreement itself is not strictly legally binding on states. However, there remains a strong moral responsibility to protect the planet. We believe this responsibility is shared globally, particularly by powerful nations with significant resources, such as the United States.

Despite its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, we argue that international law still provides a framework for holding states accountable to this broader responsibility. Our findings, along with the opening and closing statements delivered by lawyer Marc Willers, clearly demonstrated this point particularly in outlining the obligations of major states to act in the interest of protecting the environment.

Diana:Do you follow the same process when selecting witnesses?

Irakli: The selection process for witnesses follows a similar approach. We rely heavily on credible media coverage particularly reporting on environmental issues and crimes against the planet as well as reports from human rights organizations. Through these sources, we identify key individuals, including journalists, experts, and affected community members.We then reach out to these individuals and invite them to share their testimonies with the tribunal. It is important for us to amplify credible voices and lived experiences that help shed light on these issues.

Our work is also supported by the Cinema for Peace Foundation, which plays a key role in documenting the tribunals. Through this partnership, we film documentary material on each tribunal. There are plans to either produce a comprehensive documentary on the tribunal process or develop a series, with each episode focusing on a specific tribunal. Using film and cinematography helps make these issues more accessible and impactful for the public.

We also make a deliberate effort to ensure diversity among participants. This is important because it highlights that the crimes and challenges we are addressing are not confined to one region they are global issues affecting multiple countries and continents.At the same time, these tribunals reveal disparities in how countries address environmental protection. Some nations have more advanced legal frameworks, while others lag behind. This underscores the need for stronger international coordination through treaties and agreements with clear obligations for states.

The goal is to encourage a unified global response so that, as a shared international community, we can better address these challenges, protect the planet, and secure a safer future for generations to come.

Diana:  How did the recent climate advisory by the  International Court Of Justice inform your work?

Irakli: The ICJ's landmark climate advisory process was actually one of the driving forces that motivated us to organize our tribunal. What the ICJ did was a remarkable achievement for the protection of the planet and justice. Our lawyers and prosecutors very much relied on the work of the ICJ, and this influence is reflected in the verdict produced by the judges.

Diana: Since your rulings are not legally binding, how do you expect to influence accountability?

Irakli:We use our tribunals to demonstrate how justice should be delivered. Our credibility comes from the strength of our legal experts.As part of this process, we engage directly with prosecutors and justice ministries. Currently, our team is distributing our findings to over 100 justice ministries around the world. The aim is to highlight these issues, raise awareness at the highest levels of government, and make a strong call to action.

Diana: How do you ensure independence in your proceedings?

Irakli:Our legal panel operates independently. Once we provide evidence, lawyers and judges determine the charges and proceedings without interference.After each tribunal, we share our findings with courts and investigative bodies to support real legal action. We are also planning a follow-up ecocide tribunal in one year to assess progress and push further accountability.At that stage, we will review what has changed and what has not. Based on this assessment, we will once again support official institutions by providing updated findings to help initiate or strengthen legal action where necessary.

Diana: What is next on the horizon for the Court?

Irakli: We will publish the full written judgment of the Ecocide Tribunal within a month. In June, we plan to hold a second social media tribunal to evaluate state progress. We are also planning tribunals regarding the human rights situation in Iran and a case involving Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas leadership. Furthermore, we are developing a tribunal focused on crimes against democracy to address powerful governments that violate basic human rights and the rule of law.

Diana: Finally,for readers in Africa, where projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) are causing displacement, what hope does this verdict offer and could the Court consider these corporate-led projects?

Irakli: This decision signals that the era of climate impunity is ending. While this tribunal focused largely on states and Mr. Bolsonaro, our next steps will involve focusing more on corporate actors who cause serious harm to our planet.It is essential for our credibility that African communities are represented, justice should be accessible everywhere, not just in Europe.  We see that legal accountability for planetary harm is no longer theoretical it is an emerging reality. We hope this "blueprint" serves as a tool for official courts to finally hold both powerful governments and corporations accountable.We are very open to suggestions from journalists like yourself who is on the ground to give more visibility to these issues.

Read more on the website of  the court of the citizens of the world  www.the-court.eu