THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS – In a potentially transformative moment for international law and climate justice, the United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), declared on Wednesday that countries can indeed sue each other for failing to take adequate action on climate change. This landmark advisory opinion, though not legally binding, carries immense moral and legal authority, setting a powerful precedent that could fundamentally reshape global efforts to combat the climate crisis.
The ruling comes after years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations, led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by over 130 countries, who have increasingly faced existential threats from rising sea levels and extreme weather events despite contributing minimally to global emissions. In 2023, the UN General Assembly formally requested the ICJ’s opinion on two crucial questions: What are states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states whose actions (or inactions) cause harm?
In its extensive advisory opinion, the 15-judge panel unanimously affirmed that failing to protect the planet from climate change could constitute a violation of international law. Court President Yuji Iwasawa emphasized that the climate emergency is an “existential problem of planetary proportions” and warned that ignoring it could amount to an “internationally wrongful act.”
Crucially, the ICJ also stated that countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered. While specific reparations would be determined on a “case-by-case” basis, this opens a clear legal pathway for vulnerable nations to seek compensation from larger, historically more polluting countries.
Key takeaways from the ICJ’s pronouncement include:
- Human Right to a Healthy Environment: The court explicitly declared that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is a human right, a significant affirmation that can be leveraged in both domestic and international courts.
- Obligation Beyond Treaties: The ICJ clarified that state obligations extend beyond specific climate treaties like the Paris Agreement. They also arise from broader international human rights law, environmental law, and the customary international law principle of preventing cross-border harm. This means even countries not party to certain climate accords are still bound by these fundamental duties.
- Polluters Must Pay: The opinion implies that the production, consumption, and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could be breaches of international law, demanding that “polluters must stop emitting and must pay for the harms they have caused.”
- Historical Responsibility: The court noted that industrialized nations bear a greater legal obligation to lead in combating climate change due to their historical responsibility for emissions.
Climate activists and leaders from frontline communities hailed the decision as a monumental victory. “This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level,” said Danilo Garrido, Legal Counsel at Greenpeace International. “The ICJ advisory opinion marks a turning point for climate justice.”
Mary Robinson, the former UN human rights chief, called the ruling “a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of climate change.” Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, echoed the sentiment, stating, “Today, the world’s smallest countries have made history.”
While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding in the same way as judgments in contentious cases, they hold immense persuasive power and are expected to influence future climate litigation in national and international courts worldwide. They also serve as an authoritative interpretation of existing international law, guiding states in their obligations and potentially strengthening the hand of advocates in demanding more ambitious climate action.
The ruling adds significant legal weight to the growing global momentum for climate accountability, following similar recent opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. As the world grapples with the escalating climate crisis, the ICJ’s declaration signals a clear shift: inaction is no longer just a moral failure, but a potential violation of international law.