Groundbreaking ICJ Ruling: How States Must Take Action to Combat the Climate Crisis

In 2019, students from Vanuatu and other islands launched a campaign to address climate issues at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court. On March 29, 2023, a resolution was adopted, backed by over 130 countries, requesting the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on how states should handle climate change. The resolution sought answers to two main questions: What are states’ legal responsibilities related to greenhouse gas emissions? And what happens when states’ actions or lack of action harm vulnerable environments, especially for island nations?

By December 2024, a record 96 states and 11 international organizations presented their views at the hearings. This participation highlighted the urgent global stakes of climate change, often revealing sharply contrasting opinions.

The court’s analysis drew on various sources of international law, including climate treaties like the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Agreement. The ICJ concluded that countries have clear legal duties to protect the climate system. Climate action is not optional; it is a legal necessity.

The court emphasized that existing treaties, especially the Paris Agreement, impose strict commitments on countries. These countries are required to collaborate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, aiming to limit global warming to well below 2°C. To achieve this, each nation must create ambitious national plans (known as nationally determined contributions or NDCs) that evolve over time to meet the climate goal. The court rejected claims by some nations that fulfilling these contributions is merely a political choice. It made clear that adhering to international climate objectives is a legal obligation, regardless of whether a country is part of a specific agreement.

Moreover, the ICJ noted that these responsibilities extend to all states, even those not bound by a particular treaty. The principles of international law apply universally, and climate action cannot be ignored. The court also underlined the importance of international cooperation. Countries must support each other and work together to combat this global crisis. The principle of equity plays a vital role here: developed nations, which historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions, must lead by example and assist developing countries in their climate efforts.

The ICJ also established a direct connection between climate change and human rights. Many fundamental rights, like the right to life and health, are at risk due to climate change impacts. The court emphasized that safeguarding the environment is essential for ensuring human rights. States must incorporate climate action into their human rights responsibilities, regulating private actors (like polluting companies) to prevent environmental harm.

Additionally, the ICJ highlighted the legal repercussions of failing to meet climate obligations. If a country neglects its climate responsibilities, it could be held accountable under international law, which may lead to claims for compensation from nations adversely affected by environmental damage. This aligns with the principle that those who pollute should pay for the harm they cause. Legal experts suggest we are entering a new phase of “climate justice,” where victims of climate disruption—whether individuals or countries—have stronger legal grounds to demand action and reparations.

As public awareness of climate issues grows, social media discussions reflect a rising call for accountability. Users are urging more stringent climate policies and the urgent need for action, which may influence future legal frameworks and public sentiment.

In summary, the ICJ’s findings mark a significant shift in how climate change is viewed in legal terms. The court’s ruling reinforces that climate action is not just a choice but a global obligation, interwoven with human rights and international responsibility.



Source link