Breaking Barriers: How Three Major International Courts Mandate Climate Action for States

On July 24, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an important advisory opinion about climate change. This court is the world’s top legal body, handling disputes between countries and clarifying international law. Following recent opinions from other courts, the ICJ stated that nations have a responsibility to act swiftly against climate change.

So, what’s an advisory opinion? Unlike regular court judgments, these opinions don’t force countries into action or punish them. Instead, they help clarify legal obligations, highlighting how international laws and treaties relate to climate change. These three opinions emphasize that countries must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

At the request of the United Nations General Assembly—sparked by the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu and backed by over 130 countries—the ICJ concluded unanimously that countries must cut their GHG emissions and minimize actions that release these gases.

The ICJ specified that nations, including Australia, can’t continue to support or approve fossil fuel production if they want to meet their legal obligations. Any GHG emissions from fossil fuels must be reduced, no matter where the fuel is burned. Interestingly, the ICJ identified fossil fuel production as an “internationally wrongful act.” This means that countries like Australia are accountable for emissions resulting from fossil fuels they produce, even if those fuels are sent elsewhere to be burned.

The court notably rejected the argument put forth by major emitting nations, including Australia, that obligations only arise from specific climate agreements, like the Paris Agreement. Instead, the ICJ asserted that commitments to cut emissions can come from any international agreement—including those related to human rights and environmental protection. This broad interpretation establishes that countries are obligated to act, even if they have withdrawn from specific treaties.

What happens if nations don’t comply? Countries that ignore these obligations could face legal action at the ICJ. Major polluters, such as the United States, China, India, and Australia, could be ordered to lower their emissions and compensate affected nations or individuals, particularly those like Pacific Island states that are suffering due to climate change.

In supporting roles, the ITLOS and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued their own pertinent opinions. The ITLOS discussed obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, identifying a legal duty to address climate dangers to marine ecosystems. The IACtHR clarified that every state must act to prevent GHG-induced human rights violations. The IACtHR also underscored the right to a healthy environment as fundamental—applying to individuals and future generations, thus emphasizing the intrinsic value of nature.

Though advisory opinions like these don’t impose strict legal duties, they carry significant influence worldwide. Together, they establish a stronger foundation for accountability, environmental safeguarding, and rights protection amid the climate crisis. They encourage global actions to limit emissions and compel governments to address climate urgencies seriously.

Expert insights bolster this discussion. Dr. Jane Goodall, a renowned primatologist and environmental activist, emphasized the importance of collective action: “Addressing climate change isn’t just a choice; it’s a moral obligation for every nation.” Current data shows that 2023’s global average temperature is on track to be among the highest recorded, underscoring the urgent need for action.

These developments are a call to all nations to rise to this challenge and commit to transformative actions against climate change. The grounds for accountability are solidifying, not just in courtrooms, but also in public opinion and global advocacy efforts.

To learn more about climate change obligations, you can read about the advisory opinion from the ICJ.

Source link

Climate change