ICJ Ruling on Climate Change

ICJ Ruling on Climate Change: The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s July 23, 2025, advisory opinion on climate change marks a historic legal milestone, but it raises crucial questions about its legal weight, enforceability, and implications for climate justice and sovereign accountability. Read here to learn more.

Climate litigation has evolved from addressing localised environmental concerns to serving as a global accountability mechanism.

Courts around the world are increasingly recognising that climate inaction violates fundamental rights, and are holding both states and corporations accountable.

The growing body of legal precedent is reshaping how the world confronts the climate crisis, not just as a policy challenge, but as a moral and legal imperative.

Table of Contents

ICJ Ruling on Climate Change

In response to a request from the UN General Assembly (backed by over 130 countries), the ICJ issued an advisory opinion stating:

States have legal obligations under international law (including the UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, and customary international law) to:
- Mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
- Prevent transboundary harm to other states and future generations.
- Support vulnerable states through climate finance and capacity building.
Failure to act on climate change, especially by historically high-emitting countries, could be a breach of international legal obligations.

Can the ICJ Force Rich Countries to Pay for Historical Emissions?

Not Directly (No Binding Enforcement)

How are YOU targeting success in the IAS/IPS/IFS Exam?

(1) ⇒ Online Classes Enroll Now

(2) ⇒ Offline Classes Enroll Now

Note: The right guidance from ClearIAS can be the game-changer.

Advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding, unlike judgments in contentious cases between consenting parties.
However, they carry substantial moral, political, and legal influence in shaping international norms and state behavior.

It Strengthens the Legal Argument for Climate Justice

The opinion builds a legal framework for future lawsuits or negotiations on:
- Climate reparations or “loss and damage” finance.
- Differentiated responsibilities under the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR).
It may empower small island states, indigenous communities, and civil society to seek redress or action under other legal mechanisms, such as:
- International human rights bodies
- Regional courts (e.g., Inter-American Court of Human Rights)
- Domestic legal systems invoking international law

Why Is This ICJ Ruling on climate change Important?

Legal Recognition of Climate Harm:
- It affirms that climate change is not just a policy issue but a legal and rights-based obligation.
- Links environmental harm to human rights violations, particularly those affecting vulnerable communities.
Pressure on High-Emitting Countries:
- The opinion indirectly increases political and legal pressure on developed nations to:
  - Scale up climate finance.
  - Commit to deep decarbonisation.
  - Compensate for loss and damage.

Precedent for Future Litigation:
- Countries like Vanuatu, which spearheaded the request, may use this ruling in future legal cases.
- It also influences negotiations under COP processes, especially for operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund agreed upon at COP27.

Sovereignty vs. Collective Responsibility

Critics argue that such rulings challenge national sovereignty and set dangerous precedents.
However, proponents point out that climate change is a transboundary problem, and sovereignty cannot be an excuse for inaction with global consequences.

Landmark climate Litigation cases

1993: Philippines: Oposa v. Factoran

One of the first climate-related lawsuits globally.
Children sued the Philippine government to stop deforestation.
Recognised intergenerational equity as a legal principle.

2007: USA: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that GHGs are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Mandated the EPA to regulate emissions.
Set a legal precedent for environmental accountability in the U.S.

2008: India: M.C. Mehta Cases

While not climate-specific, several cases by environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta laid the foundation for:
- Polluter Pays Principle
- Right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2015: Netherlands: Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

Dutch court ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by 2020.
First case where a court mandated a government to meet climate targets.
Based on duty of care and European human rights law.

2019: Colombia: Future Generations v. Ministry of Environment

Colombian Supreme Court ruled in favour of the youth plaintiffs.
Declared the Amazon rainforest as an entity with rights.
Directed the government to halt deforestation and protect the climate.

2021: Germany: Neubauer v. Germany

German Federal Constitutional Court held that the climate law violated fundamental rights of youth.
Ordered stronger emission cuts post-2030 to protect future freedoms.

2021: Australia: Sharma v. Minister for the Environment

Federal Court ruled that the government owed a duty of care to children regarding climate change impacts.
Later overturned on appeal, but remains a key judicial acknowledgement of climate risk to future generations.

2022: USA: Juliana v. United States (Youth v. Gov)

Youth plaintiffs sued the U.S. government for failing to act on climate change.
Argued violation of constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
Still under legal review; influential in climate activism.

2023: Vanuatu & UN: Referral to ICJ for Advisory Opinion

The UN General Assembly approved a historic request for the ICJ to clarify legal responsibilities on climate action.
Marked the first global legal initiative seeking clarity on state obligations under international law.

July 2025: International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion

ICJ ruled that states have legal obligations to reduce GHGs and protect vulnerable nations.
While non-binding, the ruling is a significant step toward codifying climate accountability in international law.

Conclusion

While the ICJ’s advisory opinion cannot legally compel rich nations to pay for historical emissions, it significantly strengthens the moral, legal, and political foundations for demanding climate accountability.

In a world grappling with climate-induced loss and injustice, this ruling may well be a turning point in the long struggle for environmental equity and intergenerational justice.

Related articles: