Tangelic Talks – Season 03 | Episode 05
What is Happening right now? Gulf of Panama Anomaly and ICJ Climate Litigation
5 minutes to read
In this episode, we dive into breaking climate news with two big developments. First, we explore a major ecological shift in the Gulf of Panama, where a 40-year natural upwelling pattern that sustains plankton blooms — and by extension fish populations, coral reefs, and local livelihoods — has suddenly stopped for the first time on record. We discuss what this disruption could mean for marine ecosystems, fishing communities, and the broader economy if the pattern doesn’t return.
Second, we unpack the International Court of Justice’s new advisory opinion on climate responsibility. The ICJ declared that every country has a binding obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate system — regardless of whether they’ve signed treaties like Kyoto or Paris. While not yet legally enforceable, the opinion carries major political and moral weight and could pave the way for future interstate lawsuits over climate damages, from cross-border river pollution to greenhouse gas emissions.
Together, these stories highlight both the fragility of Earth’s systems and the growing legal tools available to hold nations accountable for protecting them.
Key points
[Andres Tamez]
There’s a phenomenon that happens in the Gulf of Panama.
It basically involves wind — I believe it’s wind — pushing hot water down and bringing cold water up. This process is really important for the ecology of the Gulf, and it’s been a consistent pattern for about 40 years. But this year, for the first time, it stopped.
That means the areas around the Gulf need to prepare and monitor whether this upwelling resumes next year or in some altered form. The implications are significant: coral reefs could be affected, fish populations could decline, and the fishing industry — a major part of the economy — could take a hit.
One of the key effects is on phytoplankton blooms. Without those blooms, there isn’t enough food to sustain the fish species that rely on them, which then cascades up the food chain. If the phenomenon doesn’t return soon, we could see crashes in fish populations, threatening both livelihoods and food security.
This is the first time in recorded history that the upwelling has stopped. The pattern has been documented year after year for four decades, though it’s unclear if it was different before monitoring began. Normally, it involves about a 10-degree differential in surface water temperatures, which drives the entire process.
For more than 40 years, the Gulf of Panama has relied on a remarkably consistent seasonal upwelling. Each year, from January to April, northerly trade winds would push warm surface waters aside, allowing cooler, nutrient-rich waters from the deep to rise. This process was vital for sustaining the region’s entire marine ecosystem. (Odea et al, 2025)
In 2025, however, this system broke down in an unprecedented way. Data from both satellites and long-term on-site monitoring show that the upwelling began over six weeks later than usual, lasted only 12 days instead of the typical 66, and reached surface temperatures of just 23.3°C — far warmer than historical lows of 14.9°C. This marked not only a drastic reduction in duration but also a severe weakening of the cooling effect itself.
The primary driver appears to have been abnormal wind patterns. While the northerly winds were as strong as in past years, they came less often, were shorter in duration, and stirred the surface far less effectively. The cumulative “wind energy” that normally powers the upwelling was therefore at a record low.(University of Warsaw, 2025)
The breakdown of upwelling is more than just the loss of a seasonal rhythm — it destabilizes a system that coastal communities have relied on for thousands of years.
In the absence of nutrient-rich waters rising from the deep, phytoplankton growth collapsed. Since these microscopic organisms form the foundation of the marine food chain, their decline rippled upward, cutting into fish populations and putting both small-scale and commercial fisheries at risk.
Coral reefs also lost their seasonal reprieve. Normally, the cooler waters brought by upwelling shield them from heat stress, but without it, they endured extended periods of high temperatures. This heightened the chances of bleaching — a process that damages or kills reef-building corals and, with them, the diverse ecosystems they sustain. (Kaur, 2025)
The 2025 collapse is more than a fisheries concern — it represents the breakdown of a long-standing oceanographic rhythm. Scientists rely on recurring patterns to assess system stability, and when one fails without a clear cause, it signals that a threshold may have been crossed.
What makes this disruption especially troubling is that it occurred during only a weak La Niña, defying expectations. It suggests that even relatively small regional shifts — such as changes in wind-jet frequency or the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) — can destabilize processes once thought resilient. The critical question now is whether this was a rare anomaly or the first warning sign of broader disruption in tropical upwelling systems.
As STRI oceanographer Carlos A. Rodríguez stresses, tropical upwelling regions, while essential to both ecological balance and local economies, remain poorly studied. “This is a wake-up call,” Rodríguez warns. “We urgently need better monitoring and predictive systems to understand how the tropics are responding to global climate disruption.”
[Victoria Cornelio]
Well, it’s good news that nations can now sue each other for climate damages.
Basically, what happened is that the International Court of Justice issued a unanimous advisory opinion stating that every country has a binding legal obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate system — whether or not they’ve signed specific climate treaties. So, Kyoto? Out of the water. Paris? Out of the water. It doesn’t matter if a nation has signed or not. If they’re failing to act on greenhouse gas emissions, that failure might be considered a wrongful act — and they could potentially be prosecuted by the ICJ.
Now, what would the damages look like? Presumably some form of economic compensation, ideally directed toward alleviating the harm caused. But the ICJ hasn’t spelled out the details yet. This is, after all, an advisory opinion. Unless a case is formally brought before the court, they can’t act on it. So it’s not legally binding in itself, but it carries significant political and moral weight.
What this opinion does is lay the groundwork for future interstate climate litigation. For example, if countries in a region share a river and one nation is polluting it in ways that damage the others, there’s now a legal precedent for bringing a lawsuit against that nation for climate-related harm.
- Read the full advisory opinion here.
Every country has a binding legal obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate system—whether or not they’ve signed specific climate treaties. (Dugal, 2025)
Failing to act on greenhouse gas emissions may constitute an "internationally wrongful act." That responsibility includes the actions of private companies operating within their jurisdiction.
Under the doctrine of “common but differentiated responsibility,” heavily polluting countries could face greater accountability for past emissions. (Rowland, 2025)
While this opinion is advisory—not legally binding—it carries substantial political and moral force, potentially laying the groundwork for future inter-state climate litigation.
A Diplomatic Game-Changer: This opinion offers countries, especially those most vulnerable to climate impacts—like small island states—a stronger legal foundation to press for accountability and reparations from major emitters. (Phillips et al, 2025)
Corporate Accountability Enshrined: Countries are now responsible not only for their own emissions but also for regulating corporate emissions, creating a new avenue for targeting fossil fuel producers indirectly. (Schaugg et al, 2025)
Elevating Climate Law: Perhaps most significantly, the ICJ embedded climate change as a matter of international law, linking it to human rights and establishing a universal standard of responsibility. (Cook et al, 2025)
What’s Next?
- Litigation Uptick Expected: While states often seek diplomatic solutions rather than lawsuits, this opinion could embolden more formal legal claims and negotiations between nations.
- Rulebook for Courts Worldwide: This advisory guidance will likely inform national and regional climate litigation, making climate science legally actionable.
- Vulnerable Nations Gain Legal Muscle: Countries already facing loss and damage—like low-lying islands—may now have legal weight to demand compensation and adaptation support.