Global Jurisdiction Rules Climate Action as Legal Imperative

Global Jurisdiction Rules Climate Action as Legal Imperative

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a unanimous 140-page advisory opinion on July 23rd, 2025, establishing that States have clear, legally binding obligations under international law to prevent climate change. This groundbreaking decision came in response to a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in March 2023, requesting the ICJ to weigh in on the obligations of states under international law in relation to climate change.

The ICJ's opinion emphasises that States must act with due diligence, cooperate internationally, and may incur legal responsibility, including ceasing wrongful conduct and providing reparations if they fail to meet these obligations. The Court integrates scientific consensus from the IPCC to clarify States' duties to rapidly reduce emissions, regulate private actors, and assist vulnerable countries.

The ICJ affirms that the Paris Agreement’s target to limit warming to 1.5°C is not merely aspirational but a definitive legal benchmark guiding States’ climate actions. The Court also rejects arguments that the climate regime operates in isolation, reinforcing that States’ climate responsibilities are embedded within and reinforced by a broader international legal framework, including human rights law.

The Court emphasizes that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is foundational for many human rights protected under instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, climate change obligations have direct legal implications for States’ duties to protect these rights. Failure to act on climate change can constitute an internationally wrongful act, triggering consequences under the law of state responsibility, with potential claims for guarantees of non-repetition and reparations.

The ICJ's advisory opinion legally binds States to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into their human rights and environmental treaty obligations, elevating climate obligations into enforceable duties under international law. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on courts and negotiations around the world.

Notably, the ICJ confirmed that the production of fossil fuels, their consumption, the granting of exploration licenses, and the payment of fossil fuel subsidies can all constitute breaches of climate-related obligations under customary international law. This ruling opens the possibility for reparations from states that fail to fulfill their climate-related obligations.

The ICJ's decision comes at a time when Parties to the Paris Agreement are asked to increase the ambition of their emissions reductions commitments in a new round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The ruling also sheds light on the potential for liability and climate reparations, which were excluded from the Paris Agreement's Article 8 on Loss & Damage.

The ICJ's advisory opinion was initiated by the group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), marking a significant victory for grassroots activism and the collective efforts of Small Island Developing States. The ruling emphasizes that each state can be held individually responsible for its contribution to climate change.

This decision, made after a lackluster UNFCCC negotiation session in Bonn, the first without the United States in 30 years, underscores the global commitment to addressing climate change, regardless of the participation of individual nations. The USA remains liable for climate-related obligations, despite its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

In conclusion, the ICJ's advisory opinion establishes a strong legal foundation for global climate action, emphasizing the urgent need for States to act on their climate obligations. The ICJ's ruling reinforces the interconnectedness of climate change, human rights, and the environment, and underscores the importance of international cooperation in addressing this global challenge.

1. The ICJ's advisory opinion signifies that science, specifically the IPCC's consensus, plays a crucial role in clarifying States' legal duties concerning climate change, emphasizing the need for rapid emission reduction and international cooperation.
2. The ICJ's decision on climate change policy and legislation reveals aconnection between States' climate responsibilities and environmental science, as States' failures to meet their obligations can lead to breaches of customary international law and potential liability for reparations.
3. This significant ruling in environmental science is expected to have a broad impact on general news and politics, as it legally binds States to integrate climate change measures into their human rights treaty obligations, and potentially redefine the international legal framework for tackling climate change and fulfilling human rights commitments.

Read also: