Climate change presents an existential threat to all life forms, and nations slow to act are now facing warnings
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a groundbreaking advisory opinion on climate change, establishing a legal framework that holds high-emitting countries accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions [1][2]. This ruling, issued in 2025, has far-reaching implications for climate accountability and justice.
The ICJ's opinion applies globally, encompassing regions such as the Asia Pacific, Canada, and the United States. It addresses a wide range of topics, including floods, natural disasters, climate justice, the Paris Agreement, climate risk, climate finance, typhoons, extreme weather, global warming, loss and damage, and inequality [1].
The ICJ's ruling considers the production and consumption of fossil fuels as a potential internationally wrongful act, attributable to those states. This responsibility entails an obligation for these nations to make "adequate contributions" to address harms caused by climate change, potentially leading to compensation or other remedies [1][2][4].
The ICJ's decision is firmly linked to existing international law frameworks such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, customary international law, and human rights law. These frameworks create a "continuing duty" for states to mitigate emissions and adapt to climate change while protecting human rights [2][3].
High-emitting developed nations, known as Annex I parties, have additional leadership duties to take the lead in combating climate change [2]. The ICJ recognises that a breach of these duties constitutes an internationally wrongful act, giving rise to state responsibility, which includes obligations to cease wrongful conduct and ensure non-repetition, and provide full reparations to injured states [2][4].
The reparations are to be determined based on case-specific circumstances, acknowledging that "material reparations" may sometimes be difficult but must be pursued through compensation and other legal remedies [4]. The advisory opinion also highlights that climate rights are integral to human rights, underpinning the legal basis for reparations on human rights grounds [4][5].
The ICJ's ruling reinforces the view that climate justice includes reparations grounded in international law and human rights obligations [1][2][4][5]. This new avenue is particularly beneficial for small, climate-vulnerable nations like those in the Alliance of Small Island States. Citizens could hold governments accountable for failing to safeguard human rights due to climate change [6].
The court made clear that nations can be legally liable for climate harms, even if the damage comes from multiple sources, including private actors such as companies [7]. The US pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year, but the court's opinion means the US is still accountable for climate harms under other international laws [8].
The ICJ's ruling may lead to greater climate action due to the new legal options it provides for addressing climate change. The court ruled that the 1.5°C goal has become the scientifically based consensus target under the Paris Agreement, opening the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations [9].
The ICJ decision provides a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations [10]. It is scientifically possible to determine each nation's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions [11].
In summary, the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion establishes a legal framework that holds high-emitting countries accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions. This ruling links these obligations firmly to existing international law frameworks and underpins the legal basis for reparations on human rights grounds. The ICJ's decision provides a measure of climate justice for small island states and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.
| Aspect | Details | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Responsible Parties | High-emitting countries, especially Annex I developed states | | Legal Basis | UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, Kyoto Protocol, customary international law, human rights law | | Wrongful Act | Production and consumption of fossil fuels causing climate harm | | Obligations | Mitigation, adaptation, fulfilling binding temperature goals (1.5°C), cooperation | | Reparations | Full reparations: cessation, non-repetition, restitution, compensation, satisfaction | | Human Rights Connection | Climate obligations framed as integral to human rights, enabling reparations claims | | Nature of Opinion | Advisory and non-binding but with strong legal authority and global political impact | | Vulnerable Countries Benefit | Small, climate-vulnerable nations like those in the Alliance of Small Island States | | Accountability of Private Actors| Nations can be legally liable for climate harms caused by private actors such as companies | | US Accountability | The US is still accountable for climate harms under other international laws despite withdrawing from the Paris Agreement | | Potential for Greater Climate Action | The ICJ's ruling may lead to greater climate action due to the new legal options it provides | | 1.5°C Goal | The ICJ ruled that the 1.5°C goal has become the scientifically based consensus target under the Paris Agreement | | Reparations Claims | The opinion opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations | | Contribution to Global Emissions | It is scientifically possible to determine each nation's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions | | Climate Justice | The ICJ's decision provides a measure of climate justice for small island states |
Sources: [1] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17253.pdf [2] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17254.pdf [3] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17255.pdf [4] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17256.pdf [5] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17257.pdf [6] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17258.pdf [7] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17259.pdf [8] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17260.pdf [9] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17261.pdf [10] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17262.pdf [11] https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/183/17263.pdf
- The ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion on climate change establishes a legal framework that holds high-emitting countries, such as those in Annex I, accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions.
- This opinion applies globally and addresses a wide range of topics, including climate justice, the Paris Agreement, climate finance, floods, and extreme weather, underpinned by human rights law.
- The ICJ considers the production and consumption of fossil fuels as a potential internationally wrongful act, attributable to those states, which has an obligation for these nations to make "adequate contributions" to address harms caused by climate change.
- The ICJ's decision provides a measure of climate justice for small island states like those in the Alliance of Small Island States, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change.
- The ICJ's ruling may lead to greater climate action due to the new legal options it provides, opening the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries like the US for reparations under other international laws, even if the US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement.
