July 28th 2025.
A groundbreaking decision has been made by the International Court of Justice on 23 July, which has given a much-needed boost to the global climate movement. The court's ruling states that countries are legally responsible for taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Failure to do so could result in financial liability for the nations involved. Although this ruling is not binding and does not have immediate consequences for any specific country, it carries significant weight in the ongoing battle against climate change on a global scale.
This advisory opinion from the Hague-based top UN court has shed light on the fact that climate action is not only a policy issue, but also a legally binding duty under international law. This will hopefully provide support to developing nations and all those advocating for stronger climate action from wealthier and more industrialized countries. This is especially crucial considering the recent shift in the United States' stance on climate change under the administration of former President Donald Trump.
The request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ was made by the UN General Assembly in 2023, following years of advocacy from island nations at risk from rising sea levels. The court was tasked with addressing two key questions: Firstly, what responsibilities do countries have under international law to protect the climate and the environment from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions? And secondly, what legal repercussions do governments face when their actions, or lack thereof, significantly contribute to the damage of the climate and environment?
The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, with support from over 130 countries. It was the largest case ever heard by the ICJ, with over 150 submissions from states, international organizations, and civil society groups. In December of last year, over 100 states and international organizations participated in the hearings. The court closely examined three important climate treaties - the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement - along with other international laws related to the environment. During the hearings, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa stated that the climate crisis is "an existential problem of planetary proportions that threatens all forms of life and the health of our planet." He also added that "the failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system...may constitute an internationally wrongful act."
The advisory opinion has been praised by climate activists and other stakeholders as a significant milestone in global climate legislation. The court emphasized that developed countries listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC must take the lead in reducing emissions and provide support to developing nations through technology and financial assistance. Furthermore, the court outlined various obligations for countries, stating that failure to meet these responsibilities could lead to legal consequences. This could include full reparations for nations affected by climate-related disasters or other impacts of climate change. Additionally, countries could be held accountable for the negligent actions of private businesses or corporations if they fail to exercise due diligence and implement sufficient regulatory or legislative measures to control irresponsible behavior.
The top international court's opinion opens up the possibility for further legal action, such as countries approaching the ICJ to ensure mutual accountability, as well as domestic legal challenges and instruments like investment agreements. Activists may also feel empowered to initiate lawsuits against their own countries for not adhering to the ruling, which spans over 130 pages.
The timing of this ruling could not be more appropriate as people around the world are witnessing the devastating impact of climate change on their lives. Rising sea levels, heatwaves, floods, cyclones, and other extreme events have become increasingly common, disrupting lives and destroying livelihoods. In the last decade alone, sea levels have risen by an average of 4.3 cm globally. The world has also experienced a 1.3 degree Celsius increase in temperature since the pre-industrial era, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels.
The ICJ's decision brings hope for a future where governments can no longer ignore their legal obligations. It reinforces a fundamental principle of climate justice - those who have contributed the least to this crisis are entitled to protection, reparations, and a sustainable future. However, the most critical aspect that remains to be seen is the authority of the ICJ to enforce these legalities on sovereign nations that refuse to comply or participate. Until and unless these rules apply to everyone, it is unlikely that any country will be willing to take the greener route.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
