The Worldwide Courtroom of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion in July 2025 declaring that every one international locations have a authorized obligation to guard and forestall hurt to the local weather.
The court docket, created as a part of the United Nations in 1945, affirmed that international locations should uphold present worldwide legal guidelines associated to local weather change and, in the event that they fail to behave, could possibly be held accountable for injury to communities and the setting.
The opinion opens a door for future claims by international locations looking for reparations for climate-related hurt.
However whereas the ruling is an enormous world story, its authorized impact on the U.S. is much less clear. We research climate policies, law and solutions. Right here’s what it’s worthwhile to know in regards to the ruling and its implications.
Why island nations known as for a proper opinion
The ruling resulted from years of grassroots and youth-led organizing by Pacific Islanders. Supporters have known as it “a turning point for frontline communities everywhere.”
Small island states like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Barbados and others throughout the Pacific and Caribbean are among the many most vulnerable to climate change, but they’ve contributed little to world emissions.
Hilary Hosia/AFP via Getty Images
For a lot of of them, sea-level rise poses an existential threat. Some Pacific atolls sit simply 1 to 2 meters above sea level and are slowly disappearing as waters rise. Saltwater intrusion threatens ingesting water provides and crops.
Their economies rely upon tourism, agriculture and fishing, all sectors simply disrupted by local weather change. For instance, coral reefs are bleaching more often and dying due to ocean warming and acidification, undermining fisheries, marine biodiversity and financial sectors corresponding to tourism.
When disasters hit, the price of restoration usually forces these international locations to tackle debt. Local weather change additionally undermines their credit score rankings and investor confidence, making it harder to get the money to finance adaptive measures.
NASA Earth Observatory
Tuvalu and Kiribati have mentioned digital nationhood and leasing land from different international locations so their individuals can relocate whereas nonetheless retaining citizenship. Some projections recommend nations like the Maldives or Marshall Islands may change into largely uninhabitable inside many years.
For these international locations, sea-level rise is taking greater than their land – they’re dropping their historical past and identification within the course of. The thought of turning into climate refugees and separating individuals from their homelands will be culturally destructive, emotionally painful and politically fraught as they transfer to new international locations.
Greater than a nonbinding opinion
The International Court of Justice, generally known as the ICJ or World Courtroom, will help settle disputes between states when requested, or it may well challenge advisory opinions on authorized questions referred to it by approved U.N. our bodies such because the Normal Meeting or Safety Council. The advisory opinion course of permits its 15 judges to weigh in on summary authorized points – corresponding to nuclear weapons or the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories – and not using a formal dispute between states.
Whereas the court docket’s advisory opinions are nonbinding, they will nonetheless have a robust impression, each legally and politically.
The rulings are thought of authoritative statements relating to questions of worldwide regulation. They usually clarify or otherwise confirm present authorized obligations which can be binding.
What the court docket determined
The ICJ was requested to weigh in on two questions on this case:
-
“What are the obligations of States beneath worldwide regulation to make sure the safety of the local weather system … from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases?”
-
“What are the authorized penalties beneath these obligations for States the place they, by their acts and omissions, have brought about vital hurt to the local weather system?”
In its 140-page opinion, the court docket cited worldwide treaties and related scientific background to affirm that obligations to protect the environment are certainly a matter of worldwide environmental regulation, worldwide human rights regulation and basic ideas of state duty.
The choice signifies that within the authoritative opinion of the worldwide authorized group, all countries are beneath an obligation to contribute to the efforts to cut back world greenhouse emissions.
To the second query, the court docket discovered that within the occasion of a breach of any such obligation, three further obligations come up:
-
The nation in breach of its obligations should cease its polluting exercise, which might imply extra greenhouse gasoline emissions on this case.
-
It should be sure that such actions don’t happen sooner or later.
-
It should make reparations to affected states when it comes to cleanup, financial cost and apologies.
The court docket affirmed that every one international locations have a authorized obligation beneath customary international law, which refers to common guidelines that come up from widespread practices amongst states, to stop hurt to the local weather. It additionally clarified that particular person international locations will be held accountable, even in a disaster caused by many countries and other entities. And it emphasised that international locations which have contributed probably the most to local weather change might bear higher duty for repairing the injury beneath a global regulation doctrine known as “common but differentiated responsibility,” which is commonly found in international treaties concerning the environment.
Whereas the ICJ’s opinion doesn’t assign blame to particular international locations or set off direct reparations, it might present help for future legal action in each worldwide and nationwide courts.
What does the ICJ opinion imply for the US?
Within the U.S., this advisory opinion is unlikely to have a lot authorized impression, regardless of a long-standing constitutional principle that “international law is part of U.S. law.”
U.S. courts hardly ever deal with worldwide regulation that has not been incorporated into domestic law as binding. And the U.S. has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction in earlier local weather instances.
Contentious instances earlier than worldwide tribunals will be introduced by one nation towards one other, however they require the consent of all of the international locations concerned. So there’s little likelihood that the US’ duty for local weather harms will probably be adjudicated by the World Courtroom anytime quickly.
Nonetheless, the court docket’s opinion sends a transparent message: All international locations are legally obligated to stop local weather hurt and can’t escape duty just because they aren’t the one nation guilty.
The unanimous ruling is especially exceptional given the present hostile political climate in the US and different industrial nations round local weather change and responses to it. It represents a very forceful assertion by the worldwide group that the duty to make sure the well being of the worldwide setting is a authorized obligation held by the whole world.
The takeaway
The ICJ’s advisory opinion marks a turning level within the world effort to hold countries responsible for local weather change.
Susceptible international locations now have a extra concrete, legally grounded base to say rights and press for accountability towards historic and ongoing local weather hurt – together with monetary claims.
How it will likely be used within the coming years stays unclear, however the opinion provides small island states particularly a robust narrative and a legal tool set.
