New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) In a historic development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared that climate change constitutes an “urgent, existential threat” and that states have binding legal obligations to address it.
The court’s first-ever advisory opinion on climate change, unanimously adopted by all 15 judges, provides unprecedented clarity on the responsibilities of nations under international law and paves the way for a wave of climate litigation worldwide.
The ICJ on Wednesday ruled that states must take all necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, halt fossil fuel expansion and provide reparations to vulnerable countries suffering climate-related harm.
It found that failure to act on emissions, including through fossil fuel production, subsidies and licenses, could constitute an “internationally wrongful act” attributable to the state.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji, delivering the opinion, called climate change a “concern of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life”, adding that the court hopes “its conclusions will allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to solve the ongoing climate crisis”.
The court held that the legal discretion countries have in setting their climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), is not absolute.
Instead, states are obliged to apply a “stringent” standard of due diligence, ensuring that their targets reflect the “highest possible ambition” and align with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
Importantly, the ruling clarifies that if restitution is materially impossible, responsible states must compensate for climate damage caused, thereby setting a firm legal precedent for reparations.
The advisory opinion, though not legally binding, draws from existing international treaties and norms and is expected to have a far-reaching impact on global climate litigation.
Courts worldwide are likely to cite the opinion in ongoing and future cases, particularly those targeting governments and fossil fuel companies for inaction or harm, climate policy experts said.
The court’s decision was prompted by a years-long campaign led by students from the University of the South Pacific, in collaboration with the Government of Vanuatu and youth-led groups like Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and World’s Youth for Climate Justice. Their efforts culminated in a unanimous UN General Assembly resolution requesting the ICJ’s opinion.
Legal experts say the opinion will sharpen tools to hold polluters accountable and reinforce human rights principles like the right to a healthy environment, which the court reaffirmed as a binding norm and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other rights.
Reacting to the decision, Sarah Mead, Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, said the ruling “validates what the majority of people all over the world want and expect from their governments – meaningful climate action”.
She noted that the ICJ’s findings build on rulings from multiple jurisdictions that have similarly found states legally responsible for insufficient climate action.
Lorenzo Cotula, a principal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said that the tension between the ICJ ruling and existing international investment laws.
“International treaties protecting foreign investments, including fossil fuel infrastructure, can make it harder for governments to honour this duty,” he said, adding the investor-state dispute system needs urgent reform in light of the court’s findings.
Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said, “Today the world’s smallest countries have made history.” He called the opinion a “lifeline” for frontline communities that have contributed the least to climate change but suffer its most severe impacts.
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, said the decision marks the end of the “era of impunity”.
With clearly defined legal obligations now in place, she added, “Governments and corporations now face the weight of scientific evidence and international law” as they head into the UN climate conference in Brazil (COP30).
Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, described the opinion as a “resounding declaration that the era of impunity for polluters and complicit states is over”.
He said the findings open the door for full reparations and signal that “the polluters must pay”.
The ruling also has implications for climate negotiations. It raises the stakes for upcoming summits, including COP30 in Brazil, where activists and developing countries are expected to push for climate justice, accountability and reparations as the foundation of future climate governance.
India, during the ICJ hearings earlier this year, had argued that developed nations must bear the primary responsibility for climate change, having historically contributed the most to global emissions.
Making submissions on behalf of India, Luther M Rangreji, joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, had said, “If contribution to degradation is unequal, responsibility must also be unequal.” India had urged the court to avoid creating new obligations beyond the existing international climate regime, which it said already accounted for historical emissions, climate justice and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC).
“It is inequitable and unjust to expect countries with negligible historical emissions to bear an equal burden in mitigating climate change,” India had told the court, adding that developed countries must meet their finance and technology obligations and “lead by example by achieving net-zero well before 2050”.
India had also criticised the unfulfilled promise of USD 100 billion made by developed nations at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 and called the new climate finance package agreed at COP29 in Baku “too little, too distant” to address urgent needs.
Highlighting its own efforts, India said that despite accounting for nearly one-sixth of humanity, its contribution to historical emissions is less than 4 per cent, and its per capita greenhouse gas emissions are below half the global average.
Rangreji said India has been acting in “good faith” as a “solutions provider”, even while balancing the imperatives of poverty eradication and sustainable development.
He also cautioned against an overreliance on evolving climate science in determining obligations, saying that interpretation of evidence may carry biases and that decisions cannot be guided by science alone.
Over 90 countries, including both large emitters and vulnerable island states, had submitted their views to the court. While some, like India and the US, advocated preserving the primacy of the existing UN framework, others sought strong legal direction on climate obligations. PTI GVS NSD NSD
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.