How the ICJ Ruling on Climate Change Impacts Australia’s Future: Key Legal Insights

On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released an important advisory opinion that could reshape how countries approach climate change. This ruling grew from a 2019 initiative led by a group of students from the University of the South Pacific and backed by Vanuatu. The court found that producing and consuming fossil fuels might be an internationally wrongful act for countries.

This decision carries several significant implications. It asserts that nations have a legal duty to tackle climate change and to try to keep global temperatures below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a goal outlined in the Paris Agreement. Countries must work towards ambitious climate plans that make a substantial contribution to this aim. Their flexibility in setting national goals is limited by “due diligence,” meaning they need to ensure their contributions align with international obligations.

The ICJ also highlighted the consequences of failing to meet these obligations. If nations do not adhere to climate agreements, they may be held responsible for the resulting damage. This responsibility includes the impacts of climate change, indicating that countries can be accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions and how they manage fossil fuel production.

The ruling addresses historical responsibility as well, raising questions about reparations. Both nations and individuals harmed by climate change could seek reparations from those who have contributed the most to emissions. Traditionally, discussions about financial aid for those affected have been voluntary, but this legal obligation may change the landscape of climate finance.

Interestingly, the ICJ dismissed claims from wealthier countries that it’s hard to pinpoint responsibility for climate change. The court noted that it’s scientifically feasible to calculate each country’s contribution to global emissions, suggesting that accountability can be established based on historical and current data.

This advisory opinion builds on a trend in climate litigation. For instance, in 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court mandated the Netherlands to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020, acknowledging the threat climate change poses to global ecosystems and lives. Likewise, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in a 2025 opinion, recognized a global right to a healthy climate, emphasizing a legal obligation to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

For Australia, the implications of the ICJ ruling are particularly relevant. The country continues to actively produce and subsidize fossil fuels, with nearly A$14.5 billion allocated to fossil fuel subsidies in 2023-24 alone. This raises the possibility of legal challenges if Australia doesn’t align its policies with international law.

Bek Markey-Towler, who oversees Australia’s climate litigation database, believes the nation could face lawsuits if it disregards its legal responsibilities. Vanuatu’s climate change minister echoed these concerns, urging Australia to stop its support for fossil fuels, as this could result in internationally wrongful acts.

The ICJ’s decision sets a profound challenge for Australia and may influence domestic legal actions against officials who approve high-emission projects. History shows that when policymakers lag behind, legal action often follows.

As countries navigate their climate responsibilities, this ruling could be a pivotal moment, pushing nations to reconsider their actions and their impact on the planet.



Source link

advisory opinion,Australia,Climate change,climate justice,climate litigation,climate obligations,due diligence,environmental law,fossil fuel subsidies,fossil fuels,Greenhouse gas emissions,ICJ ruling,international law,nationally determined contributions,Paris Agreement,Public Sector,reparations,state responsibility,UN climate negotiations,Vanuatu