Context-

In a historic development with wide-ranging implications for international climate governance, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a landmark advisory opinion affirming that states have legal obligations under international law to protect the climate system and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

• The request for the opinion came through a 2023 UN General Assembly resolution, driven by the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu and supported by over 130 countries. It aimed to secure legal clarity on the responsibilities of countries, particularly toward vulnerable nations like Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which are disproportionately impacted by rising sea levels and climate-related disasters.
• This advisory opinion adds legal weight to longstanding moral and political calls for stronger climate action and could mark the beginning of a new era of climate litigation and accountability.

What Did the UN Ask the ICJ to Clarify?

The UN General Assembly posed two specific questions to the ICJ:

1.       What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment for current and future generations?

2.     What are the legal consequences for states that fail to fulfil these obligations?

Core Findings of the ICJ:

After examining a broad range of international treaties and principles, the ICJ made several powerful observations that redefine how climate responsibility is understood globally.

1. The Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment

• The court affirmed that access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is part of established human rights norms, including those under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Therefore, climate protection becomes a legal duty of states under human rights law—not just environmental policy.

2. Legal Obligation to Reduce Emissions

• The ICJ held that states are legally obligated to prevent harm caused by their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including transboundary impacts.
• Countries must align their actions with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
• Alarmingly, the world has already warmed by 1.3°C, leaving little room for delay.

3. Consequences of Non-Compliance

States that fail to act in line with their obligations may:

• Be held legally responsible for contributing to climate harm
• Be required to stop the wrongful conduct
• Provide guarantees of non-repetition
• Offer full reparation to affected countries or communities, based on the nature and severity of harm

These obligations could extend to cases involving private corporations, especially if a state fails to exercise due diligence or regulate damaging corporate behaviour. This opens a path for holding both governments and polluting industries accountable.

Legal Instruments Cited by the Court:

The ICJ drew upon a wide array of binding and non-binding international agreements, including:

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1994
• Kyoto Protocol, 1997
• Paris Agreement, 2015
• Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982
• Montreal Protocol, 1987 (on ozone protection)
• UN Convention to Combat Desertification, 1994

Together, these treaties form a legal ecosystem requiring countries to act individually and collectively to protect the climate and environment.

The significance of ICJ Opinion:

Though advisory in nature and not legally binding, ICJ opinions are highly authoritative interpretations of international law. Their impact lies in:

• Setting legal precedent for use by national and international courts
• Empowering vulnerable states like SIDS to seek reparations or stronger climate commitments
• Reinforcing the global push for legal recognition of loss and damage
• Encouraging future climate litigation against governments and private entities

This is crucial because under existing frameworks like the Paris Agreement, most obligations are non-punitive and self-determined, with no penalties for withdrawal or non-compliance. For example, major emitters have previously exited agreements (such as the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement) or failed to meet targets with no legal repercussions.

The ICJ's opinion on Major Emitters:

The ruling directly challenges the long-standing resistance by certain industrialised nations—such as the United States and Russia—against court-mandated emission cuts. While these countries have argued that emissions reductions must remain voluntary, the ICJ has made it clear that international law requires meaningful, measurable climate action.

Importantly, the court added that just initiating climate action is not enough. States must demonstrate the adequacy, scale, and effectiveness of their actions, potentially subjecting their national policies to international scrutiny.

About the International Court of Justice (ICJ):

• Established: 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
• Headquarters: Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands
• Main Functions:
• Resolves legal disputes between states
• Issues advisory opinions on questions referred by authorised UN organs
• Composition:
• 15 judges elected for 9-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council
• Judges act independently and not as representatives of their governments
• Jurisdiction Limitations: ICJ can hear cases only if states request or consent to its jurisdiction
• Reputation: Often referred to as the “World Court” due to its global mandate and impartiality

Future Implications:

This opinion could reshape the global climate accountability framework in several key ways:

• Stronger claims for climate reparations by climate-vulnerable nations
• New wave of strategic climate litigation against both states and multinational polluters
• Greater pressure on developed countries to fulfil their finance, technology, and emissions-cutting commitments
• Potential expansion of national court jurisdiction to incorporate these legal principles in domestic climate cases

Though implementation will depend on political will and judicial interpretation across jurisdictions, the ICJ has sent a clear message: climate action is no longer optional, and non-compliance may invite legal consequences.

Conclusion:

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is a pivotal moment in the evolution of international climate law. It reframes climate change not only as an environmental or developmental issue but as a legal and human rights issue grounded in binding obligations.

For climate-vulnerable countries, activists, and future generations, this is a powerful legal tool to demand action and accountability. While real change will depend on enforcement and judicial follow-up, the opinion has laid a firm legal foundation for a more just and enforceable global climate regime.

The message is unequivocal: safeguarding the planet is not just a shared moral duty—it is a shared legal responsibility.