In a groundbreaking legal opinion with far-reaching implications for global climate governance, the United Nations’ top court declared on Wednesday that countries failing to combat climate change may be violating international law. The advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague signals a historic turning point in climate accountability and strengthens the legal foundation for climate justice worldwide.
The court’s non-binding opinion stated that nations that negligently contribute to the worsening climate crisis could be legally liable for environmental damage and may be required to provide reparations to affected states. The judgment underscores that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is not merely aspirational—it is a recognized human right under international law.
The ruling is being hailed by climate activists and vulnerable nations alike as a powerful tool to hold polluting countries accountable for both past and future harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Small Islands, Big Voice: Vanuatu Leads the Charge
The case was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, supported by over 130 UN member states, following years of persistent lobbying by low-lying island nations that face existential threats due to rising sea levels. In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly formally asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion clarifying states’ legal obligations regarding climate change.
At the heart of the court’s deliberations were two key questions:
- What are states legally obliged to do under international law to protect the environment and climate from the effects of greenhouse gas emissions?
- What are the legal consequences for states whose actions—or failure to act—have significantly harmed the environment?
A panel of 15 judges deliberated over the matter, ultimately concluding that countries have clear legal obligations to mitigate climate change and prevent harm to the environment. The opinion further confirms that states responsible for significant damage may be required to compensate other nations suffering as a result.
A Win for Climate Justice
As the judgment was read inside the packed courtroom in The Hague, climate campaigners gathered outside in a show of solidarity, waving banners that read: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.”
The verdict was met with joy and celebration, with activists hugging and cheering as they emerged from the hearing.
“Today, the tables have turned,” declared Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The world’s highest court has given us a powerful new instrument to protect people from the devastating impacts of climate change and to pursue justice for the damage already caused.”
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, added:
“The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future.”
Legal experts believe the opinion could provide a strong legal basis for domestic lawsuits, where citizens or groups might sue their own governments for failing to meet climate obligations.
Addressing Past, Present, and Future Harms
“What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “It’s not just about future emissions targets—it also tackles historical responsibility. We cannot solve the climate crisis without acknowledging its roots.”
The court’s decision arrives at a moment of growing momentum within the global legal system for environmental justice. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that states have a legal duty not just to avoid environmental harm but also to actively restore degraded ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights similarly ruled that governments must better protect citizens from the consequences of climate change.
In 2019, the Netherlands’ Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that the Dutch government had a human rights obligation to protect its people from climate threats—a decision widely viewed as a turning point in environmental litigation.
The Stakes: “Our Survival Is on the Line”
For vulnerable nations like Vanuatu, the legal recognition of climate rights is more than symbolic—it is a matter of survival.
Arnold Kiel Loughman, Vanuatu’s Attorney General, told the court during the December hearings,
“The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line.”
Vanuatu and other Pacific nations have already begun feeling the devastating effects of climate change. In the decade leading up to 2023, global sea levels rose by 4.3 centimeters on average, with even higher rises recorded in parts of the Pacific. Meanwhile, the Earth has already warmed 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels due to the persistent burning of fossil fuels.
Despite the growing urgency, global emissions continue to rise, and major polluters remain hesitant to commit to drastic reductions. “The international agreements between states are simply not moving fast enough,” lamented Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change.
Major Emitters Respond with Resistance
Although the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, it sets a clear precedent that can influence future treaties, climate negotiations, and litigation worldwide. All 193 UN member states are party to the court, including the world’s largest emitters—China and the United States.
However, both the United States and Russia, which are among the world’s top petroleum producers, have expressed strong opposition to any court-led enforcement of emissions reductions, fearing economic consequences and loss of sovereignty.
But UN Secretary-General António Guterres offered a stark warning in response, stating in an interview with the Associated Press that, “Those who cling to fossil fuels risk going broke doing so.”
Limited but Crucial Role for International Law
In delivering the opinion, the presiding ICJ judge emphasized that while international law has a vital role to play, a lasting solution to the climate crisis must involve contributions from all fields of human knowledge.
“Law alone cannot solve this crisis,” he said. “But law can and must guide humanity toward securing a livable future for ourselves and for those who are yet to come.”
As the world continues to grapple with rising temperatures, sea-level increases, and ecological destruction, the ICJ’s ruling adds a powerful new voice to the chorus demanding urgent and just climate action.
