"Voluntary Emissions Reduction Policies Have Ended"
International Court of Justice Delivers Landmark Opinion on Climate Justice
In a historic move, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on climate justice in July 2025, following a request from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2023. The opinion aimed to clarify the legal obligations of States under international law regarding climate change.
The case, which was strongly supported by Pacific Island students and climate-vulnerable states such as Vanuatu, sought to establish the binding legal duties of States to mitigate emissions, adapt to climate change effects, and cooperate in good faith to prevent climate harm. The ICJ's ruling declared that these duties are not optional, but legally binding, emphasizing that failure to act could amount to a "wrongful act" subject to reparations.
The ICJ's opinion offers a significant shift in the approach to climate change, as it demonstrates that international law can be used to protect people and the planet, rather than corporate interests, greed, and polluting States' power.
The ruling also recognizes the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as foundational and enforceable, rooted in human rights treaties and customary international law. It affirms that climate change undermines the enjoyment of rights protected under international law, including rights to life, health, food, water, housing, family, and self-determination.
The ICJ's opinion also clarifies that States can be held accountable not only for what they do directly, but also for what they fail to regulate, such as corporate emissions. It also determines that attribution of harm to individual States is legally viable, even in the face of collective emissions.
The ICJ explicitly put States on notice that they can be liable for failure to address fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies. It also affirmed that climate obligations are owed erga omnes, meaning to the international community as a whole.
Moreover, the ICJ's opinion states that a small island state, like Tuvalu or the Marshall Islands, does not lose its statehood, sovereignty, or maritime rights if it loses part or all of its territory due to sea-level rise. It also ruled that the principle of non-refoulement applies to people displaced across borders by climate impacts, meaning that states may not return climate displaced people to countries where their lives would be at serious risk.
The ICJ's opinion fundamentally reshapes the terrain ahead of COP30, injecting binding legal clarity into the climate negotiations and reframing mitigation and adaptation as legal obligations. It arms frontline states, affected communities, and civil society with an authoritative legal tool to confront inaction, delay, arrogance, and greenwashing in the climate negotiations.
The ICJ's opinion is a roadmap for climate justice, for accountability, for scientific facts, for the rights of present and future generations. It rules that these rights extend not only to those alive today, but to future generations as well.
In essence, the ICJ's ruling restores the idea that the law can rise to meet the moment of urgency when politics fails. It reflects what many in the Global Majority have long demanded: legal recognition of their suffering, their leadership, and their rights. The implementation of the ICJ's ruling will depend on political will, public pressure, climate action, and litigation. But one thing is clear: the world now has a powerful legal framework to hold States accountable for their actions on climate change.
- The landmark opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2025, regarding climate justice, has significant implications for environmental-science, as it emphasizes the binding legal duties of States to mitigate emissions and adapt to climate change effects.
- The rulings made by the ICJ in relation to climate change recognize the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental and enforceable human right, particularly in the context of policy-and-legislation addressing climate-change.
- Moving forward, the ICJ's ruling on climate justice sets a new precedent in the realm of general-news and politics, asserting that States can and must be held accountable for their climate-change policies, including their regulation of corporate emissions, and their provision of fossil fuel subsidies.
