Climate change poses a severe threat to all life forms, states landmark decision, warning slow-moving countries of consequences
International Court of Justice Sets New Legal Baseline for Climate Action
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered an advisory opinion on climate change, setting a new global standard for high-emitting countries to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In its 2025 advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled that States have a legal obligation to act with due diligence and cooperation to control GHG emissions, protect the environment, and honor commitments under international agreements like the Paris Agreement. This duty to prevent climate harm applies globally and indiscriminately, even for States not party to the Paris Agreement or other climate treaties.
High-emitting countries that breach these obligations by causing harm through excessive emissions or failing to regulate private actors contributing to climate change incur international legal responsibility. They may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, provide guarantees of non-repetition, and make full reparation for damages caused by their acts or omissions.
The ICJ's decision establishes a clear baseline against which to assess countries' action, or inaction, on climate change. It is scientifically possible to determine each nation's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions. This means that nations can be legally liable for climate harms, even if damage comes from multiple sources, including private actors like companies.
The ICJ's ruling highlights the interconnection between climate change and human rights. A clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. Therefore, States must guarantee protection from climate harms that directly impact human rights such as health and livelihood.
This new legal option is particularly significant for small, climate-vulnerable nations, such as those in the Alliance of Small Island States, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations. The ICJ's decision provides a measure of climate justice for these countries.
Although ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding, this unanimous and authoritative decision carries significant weight in shaping international environmental governance and state practice. It opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change, potentially resulting in compensation or other remedies.
The ICJ's ruling is relevant to various regions, including Asia Pacific, Canada, the United States, and has implications for topics like carbon and climate, policy and finance, infrastructure, inequality, cities, climate justice, the Paris Agreement, climate risk, climate finance, natural disasters, extreme weather, global warming, loss and damage, and Sustainable Development Goals like 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17.
In conclusion, the ICJ's advisory opinion sets a new legal standard for high-emitting countries to take meaningful action on climate change and protect human rights. It empowers vulnerable groups to hold polluting States accountable and reinforces the importance of climate justice globally.
- The ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change has set a new standard for high-emitting countries, reinforcing their legal obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions, protect the environment, and abide by commitments under international agreements like the Paris Agreement.
- The decision by the ICJ in 2025 established that States have a duty to prevent climate harm through due diligence and cooperation, and this applies globally, even to those not party to the Paris Agreement or other climate treaties.
- The ruling by the ICJ provides a legal basis for determining a nation's contribution to global emissions, making them liable for climate harms, even if damage comes from multiple sources, including private actors like companies.
- The ICJ's decision is significant for small, climate-vulnerable nations, such as those in the Alliance of Small Island States, as it offers a measure of climate justice by providing recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.
- The ICJ's advisory opinion carries implications for various topics like climate and carbon, policy and finance, human rights, climate justice, infrastructure, Sustainable Development Goals, natural disasters, extreme weather, and global warming.
