Historic Judgment on Climate Change Obligations: A Flurry of Responses Following ICJ's Groundbreaking Decision
International Court of Justice Affirms Binding Legal Obligations for States on Climate Change
In a landmark decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion stating that states have legal obligations to address climate change under international law. The ruling, hailed by various organisations as a significant step towards climate justice, outlines the responsibilities of states in mitigating emissions, regulating private actors, adapting to climate impacts, cooperating internationally, and supporting vulnerable countries.
According to Harj Narulla, Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, the ICJ's ruling puts corporations and the fossil fuel industry on notice. The opinion establishes that states have binding legal obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system, comply with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target, regulate private actors’ emissions, undertake adaptation measures, uphold international cooperation, and meet their responsibilities under customary law and human rights instruments.
Ambassador John Silk of the Marshall Islands mentioned that the ICJ's ruling confirmed that 1.5°C is the legally binding global threshold for climate change. The ICJ emphasised that these obligations are not aspirational but legal and enforceable, grounded in substantive international law including environmental law, human rights law, and state responsibility principles.
Lavanya Rajamani, CCAG member and Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Oxford, described the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate Change as an "extraordinary vindication" for those affected by climate change. Candy Ofime, Researcher and Legal Advisor in Amnesty International's Climate Justice Team, highlighted that the ICJ established that states' failure to act on climate change may constitute an internationally wrongful act.
The ICJ's ruling was seen as paving the way for more concrete demands around loss and damage, historical responsibility, and the rights of communities facing existential threats. It was also described as bringing the weight of international law behind what climate science has shown for decades, creating a powerful foundation for future claims to hold both states and major emitters accountable.
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, welcomed the ICJ's advisory opinion and emphasised the importance of the 1.5-degree goal of the Paris Agreement. Kumi Naidoo, President of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, called for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty in light of the ICJ's ruling.
Mary Robinson, Member of the Elders, highlighted that the ICJ's ruling provides a powerful new tool to protect people from the impacts of the climate crisis and deliver justice for the harm caused by emissions. Elisa Morgera, UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change & Human Rights, asserted that the ICJ's ruling reflects the truth that climate-harming activities violate international law and people's rights.
Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, stated that the ICJ has affirmed the climate crisis as a health crisis and emphasised the legal duty of governments and corporations to prevent further harm. The Center For International Environmental Law stated that the ICJ's ruling represents a groundbreaking legal decision in reaffirming the role of international law and global governance in demanding climate justice.
Hon. Ralph Regenvanu, Minister for Climate Change of Vanuatu, stated that the initiative was part of efforts to get quicker action on climate change. Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, declared that the era of impunity is over and that governments and corporations now face legal obligations to prevent climate catastrophe.
In summary, the ICJ's ruling underscores the urgent need for states to act with due diligence to mitigate emissions, regulate private actors, adapt to climate impacts, cooperate internationally, and support vulnerable countries, or else face legal responsibility under international law as affirmed by the ICJ advisory opinion.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed that states have binding legal obligations to address climate change under international law.
- The ICJ's ruling highlights that states have responsibilities in preventing significant harm to the climate system, complying with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target, and regulating private actors’ emissions.
- The ICJ emphasizes that states' failure to act on climate change may constitute an internationally wrongful act, drawing attention to the need for environmental protection.
- The ICJ's opinion underscores that climate change initiatives are crucial for the health of our planet and its people, making it a health crisis as well.
- The ICJ's decision signals a significant shift in climate politics, paving the way for more concrete demands around historical responsibility, loss and damage, and the rights of communities facing existential threats.
- The ICJ's ruling on climate justice represents a groundbreaking development in environmental-science education and self-development, providing a powerful foundation for future claims against states and major emitters.
- In light of the ICJ's ruling, discussions about climate action, international cooperation, and ecosystem preservation must be prompt, decisive, and guided by scientific evidence and human rights principles to ensure climate justice for all.
