- On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice ruled that every country now has a binding duty under international law to mitigate and redress climate change, a milestone in the fight for climate justice.
- The decision further fortifies the position of small island states and developing nations such as India, allowing them to call for climate reparations and responsibility from nations with historical high emissions.
- The advisory opinion of the ICJ shifts climate responsibility from voluntary to a customary international legal obligation, paving the way for future lawsuits, policy shifts, and international climate talks.
- Headed by Vanuatu and supported by over 130 nations along with youth climate activism, this case represents a collective global movement towards a more just and sustainable environmental future.
On July 23rd, 2025, the United Nations’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), delivered a unanimous opinion stating that nations now hold a legal obligation under international law to prevent and address Climate Change. The ICJ recognised climate change as an existential threat and affirmed the human right to a ‘clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.’ This advisory opinion, supported by all 15 ICJ judges, is non-binding; it marks a landmark achievement, empowering individuals, nations and communities directly affected by climate change to hold responsible parties accountable.”
Rising Sea Levels Catalysed the Historic Legal Initiative
Climate Change has always been a threat to many due to its adverse and irreversible consequences, one of the most alarming being rising sea levels. By 2023, global sea levels had risen by an average of 4.3 centimetres (1.7 inches), devastating small island nations around the world. In response, and after years of lobbying in various multilateral forums, especially the United Nations, the UN General Assembly formally requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2023.
The ICJ reviewed thousands of pages of written submissions and heard oral arguments over two weeks, in what became the Court’s most significant case to date. The UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to consider two crucial questions: what are the legal obligations of a country to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for states that are contributing to climate change? This case was led by Vanuatu, a small island nation in the Pacific, and the country had the backing of more than 130 nations. It was also driven by youth activists and students, highlighting the global and intergenerational nature of the issue. Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, Ralph Regenvan, stated that “the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity”, adding that the ruling exceeded all expectations.
A Moral and Legal Triumph for the Global South and Climate Justice
This ruling can be considered a major victory in the fight for Climate Change as it puts in check all those who are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions that are deteriorating our planet at a very fast pace. The ICJ’s landmark opinion is not only a moral triumph in the pursuit of climate justice for small island nations but also a significant win for the Global South and developing countries like India, which have disproportionately suffered the consequences of climate change caused by the early industrialisation of developed nations. It is therefore unjust to penalise developing countries for aspiring to progress, especially when the bulk of environmental damage has already been inflicted by those who industrialised earlier and emitted massive amounts of greenhouse gases.
For decades, wealthy Western nations have contributed disproportionately to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet they have persistently shifted blame and responsibility onto developing nations. This not only highlights the double standards practised by the West but also serves to suppress economic competition in today’s globalised world. The ICJ’s advisory opinion counters this imbalance and injustice by reinforcing the fact that all states, especially the high emitters, now have a legal obligation to prevent further environmental degradation. This ruling not only empowers small island nations but also strengthens the Global South nations to demand reparations based on legal grounds as supported by the customary standards established through the ICJ’s opinion. The ICJ’s historic ruling enhances the legal and diplomatic capacities of Global South nations and expands their policy space and influence on global negotiating tables.
Shifting From Resolutions to Responsibilities
Though it is an advisory opinion and not legally binding, climate activists around the world are celebrating this ruling, as it establishes a legal obligation for the world’s leading polluters to shift their focus away from fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. The court, situated in the Hague, also stated that countries continuing to pollute the environment or contribute to climate change in any form could have to face punitive measures. These may include compensation or other forms of restitution to nations and communities facing severe consequences, some of which are experiencing an existential crisis. The ICJ’s advisory opinion is more than just a symbolic victory for climate protection. It redefines global expectations, not only for states but also for private corporations to operate in ways that do not endanger the environment. By affirming legal obligations under international climate law and recognising the human right to a clean and healthy environment, the ruling introduces the possibility of reparations for those most affected by climate change. This historic decision lays a crucial foundation for advancing climate justice and environmental laws, shaping future laws, policies and diplomatic engagements on Climate Change.
In conclusion, the ICJ’s advisory opinion marks a transformative moment in the global climate change discourse. It elevates the legal, moral and ethical responsibility of all nations while simultaneously protecting the sovereignty and rights of the small island nations facing an existential crisis. It particularly emphasises the responsibility of historically high-emitting countries to act decisively and ethically in addressing climate change and environmental degradation. It shifts the narrative from voluntary climate pledges to tangible, legally enforceable responsibilities and duties. It provides small island nations, the global south and other developing nations a powerful legal and diplomatic tool to demand justice, accountability and compensation.
While this ruling protects the planet and small island nations from drowning, for countries like India and other developing nations, it provides a pathway and a rightful claim to sustainable development and growth without the burden of destroying the environment or facing criticism from an already developed West with a large polluting industrial legacy and history. While non-binding, the ICJ’s ruling creates a significant precedent in customary international law, climate negotiations, and international as well as domestic policy regimes. The world is one step further towards a more equitable, sustainable and resilient environmental future.
Vibha Hareesh has a Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations from Jindal Global University. She has a strong interest in geopolitics, international relations, and security studies. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Dr. Lakshmi Karlekar & Dr. Anurag Tripathi