If a country Failure to take decisive action to protect the planet from climate change can potentially violate international law and be responsible for the damage caused to humanity. This is one of the conclusions of the unprecedented advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of the state facing an environmental crisis.
The 15 judges who constitute the International Court of Justice, the highest judiciary of the United Nations, described the need to address the threat of climate change as “emergency and existence of survival”. They unanimously determined that signers of various international agreements could violate international law if they do not take measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling states that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” constitutes human rights. This explanation elevates climate debate to the environment or economic sphere, positioning it as a question of justice and fundamental rights.
A shift in focus could greatly affect future international legislation and litigation, making it easier for polluting countries to be held accountable for the environmental damage they cause. According to the latest report from the Grantham Climate Change and the London Institute for Environmental Studies, as of June this year, there were about 2,967 proactive climate change lawsuits in nearly 60 countries, with 226 new cases launched in 2024 alone.
Yuji Iwasawa, president of the International Court of Justice, clarified that this is an advisory opinion, not a binding ruling. However, he said the court hopes the announcement will “inform and guide social and political action to resolve the ongoing climate crisis.”
The case that led to the opinion originated in 2019, when a group of students from Vanuatu were particularly vulnerable to climate change and began to push the government’s inaction on the climate crisis, which was legally considered “existent risks.” The country’s climate change minister Ralph Regenvanu then filed a formal complaint with the International Court of Justice. In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly formalized the court’s request for advisory opinions.
The judge answered two key questions: What is the obligation to protect the climate regime and the environment from greenhouse gas emissions under international law? Legal consequences to the state’s actions or inaction that have caused significant damage to the climate, especially with regard to fragile island states and now and future generations?
The Court’s analysis takes into account the provisions of international treaties, such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The ICJ’s assessment concluded that states are obliged to “response through due diligence and using all means” to prevent activities within their jurisdiction, or to adversely affect the environment by controlling measures.
