Concern welcomes a huge win for climate justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a historic advisory opinion confirming that governments have clear legal duties to confront climate change - marking a major win for vulnerable nations, especially low-lying island states, and global civil society. The United Nations’ highest judicial authority, in The Hague, Netherlands, affirmed that countries are legally obligated to safeguard the environment from the harmful effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To meet this duty, States must act with due diligence and in cooperation with others.

Part of this obligation includes adherence to the Paris Agreement, which calls for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The ICJ further stated that countries violating these obligations could face legal consequences. 

Such consequences might involve halting harmful actions, providing assurances that violations will not recur, and offering appropriate reparations based on the context.

The request for the advisory opinion was initiated by a coalition of Pacific law students, known as Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, who emphasised the urgent threat climate change poses to small island nations. In September 2021, the government of Vanuatu formally announced its intent to seek the Court’s guidance on the issue.

The ICJ’s opinion was grounded in States’ commitments under various international treaties focused on environmental protection and human rights. These include agreements like the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which mandate environmental stewardship for the benefit of current and future generations. 

Additionally, under human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, countries must take action on climate change to uphold individuals’ fundamental rights.

This advisory opinion is not based on new law, but grounded in existing law, and while only opinion at this point is sets a precedent and provides a new powerful tool, for climate justice, and it provides the legal clarity that matches the moral truth frontline communities. It confirms what Pacific peoples have been shouting for years and have been facing and will continue to face for years, it gives gravity to the voices of the pacific, their collective stories, and perspectives on loss of land, loss of people, loss of assets, and threats to their culture. 

Nations are now bound by international law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or provide compensation to those suffering the consequences of climate change - a clear signal that current actions are inadequate. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected justifications from major emitters - including Australia, the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia - for continuing fossil fuel extraction. Instead, the Court issued progressive findings with sweeping implications for global climate governance.

States must now accelerate emission reductions through ambitious and enforceable Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and ensure companies operating within their borders do the same. The Court underscored that climate targets must align with the 1.5°C limit outlined in the Paris Agreement.

For Small Island Developing States, the advisory opinion represents a significant legal and diplomatic victory. It cements the 1.5°C limit in international law, supports the call to halt fossil fuel development, and demands comprehensive accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions.

Crucially, this opinion lays the legal foundation for climate reparations - an issue long sidestepped in UNFCCC negotiations. It affirms that both historically high emitters and countries currently engaged in fossil fuel production or exports could be held financially accountable to vulnerable nations through compensation and restitution mechanisms.

Moreover, the opinion clarifies that climate finance is not a discretionary act of goodwill but a legal obligation under both the Paris Agreement and customary international law. Funding must be adequate, accessible, and targeted to address loss and damage, support debt relief, and promote global tax equity.

The Court also affirmed that rising sea levels do not invalidate the sovereignty or maritime rights of low-lying nations, and that human rights obligations apply across borders. The challenge now is to take this legal momentum beyond courtrooms and into every space where climate decisions are made - from boardrooms to parliaments.