Replication Data for: Competing State Interests and the Strategic Use of Advisory Proceedings: Written Submissions in the ICJ Climate Case

This paper examines how states strategically engage in advisory proceedings through written submissions before international judicial bodies, with a focus on the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has become a key arena for normative contestation, particularly in issue areas like climate change where national interests diverge sharply. Despite the opportunity costs of relinquishing strategic ambiguity on contentious issues and the procedural costs of submitting written statements, states use this venue to advance competing visions of international obligations that align with their material and geopolitical interests. Drawing on a novel dataset from the ICJ’s climate change advisory proceedings and a close analysis of individual written submissions, we present empirical evidence that state participation is shaped by strategic considerations. Through its focus on written submissions, the paper offers a fuller account of the motivations behind legal engagement in non-binding processes. The results contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how strategic interests intersect with international politics and law in contemporary global governance.