Stockholm (NordSIP) – On Wednesday, 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a historic ruling on the “obligations of states in respect of climate change”, which opens the doors for increased accountability and human rights protection. Citing a comprehensive range of legal foundations, the ICJ’s unanimous¹ decision found that states have an obligation to fight climate change, including keeping global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Although the ICJ’s ruling is a non-legally binding opinion, the Court also warned that states that failed to meet these obligations would likely face a wide range of liabilities. These are likely to become relevant when national courts use this latest ruling to inform their decisions in future cases.
The ICJ’s Decision
Following considerable political efforts by the Pacific Island State of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on two questions:
- What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the environment?
- What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations when they cause harm to the environment?
In the summary of its answer to question (1), among other things, the Court argued that states have an “obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change”. Moreover, national governments have a duty to co-operate with each other to achieve the underlying objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The ruling takes a hardline and literal view of global warming temperature goals, noting the obligation of signatories to the Paris Agreement to “prepare, communicate and maintain (…) nationally determined contributions consistent with the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” Generally speaking, the Court held that these obligations extend not just to the governments’ own actions but more broadly to its laws and regulations and how they impact and incentivise the behaviour of private actors like domestic and multinational corporations.
In its answer to question (2), ICJ’s decision notes that “the legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include the obligations of: (a) cessation of the wrongful actions or omissions, if they are continuing; (b) providing assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of wrongful actions or omissions, if circumstances so require; and (c) full reparation to injured States in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction (…).”
“A New Era of Climate Accountability”
International Non-governmental organisations were of one voice in welcoming the ruling of the ICJ as a significant historic step forward in the fight against pollution and climate change. In the Nordics, only Sweden seemed to have commented, supporting the decision.
“This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level. The ICJ advisory opinion marks a turning point for climate justice, as it has clarified, once and for all, the international climate obligations of States, and most importantly, the consequences for breaches of these obligations. This will open the door for new cases, and hopefully bring justice to those who despite having contributed the least to climate change, are already suffering its most severe consequences. The message of the Court is clear: the production, consumption and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could be breaches of International Law. Polluters must stop emitting and must pay for the harms they have caused,” Danilo Garrido, Legal Counsel at Greenpeace International, said
“This decision provides the legal clarity the world has been waiting for. The Court rightly acknowledged that climate change is a common concern of mankind and that a healthy environment is the foundation for the health and wellbeing of people. This advisory opinion could have far-reaching implications for national decisions and future legal actions demanding that states fulfill their climate obligations, as well as ensuring nature and ecosystem integrity,” added Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, WWF Global Climate and Energy Lead and COP20 President.
“Today’s opinion is a landmark moment for climate justice and accountability. The ICJ made clear that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment. The world’s highest court stressed that states have a duty to act now, regulate the activities of private actors and cooperate to protect current and future generations and ecosystems from the worsening impacts of human-induced climate change. This unprecedented opinion will bolster the hundreds of ongoing and upcoming climate litigation cases around the world, where people seek justice for the livelihoods that have been snatched away and the damage caused by major polluters,” Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International, argued.
“IUCN welcomes this important advisory opinion, which strengthens the global legal framework and reinforces the urgent imperative to limit warming to 1.5 °C. IUCN has been actively engaged at every stage of these historical proceedings and congratulates the ICJ on this key decision that will shape the future of our planet,” Dr Grethel Aguilar, IUCN Director General, explained.
UN Secretary General, António Guterres, welcomed the ICJ’s decision, noting that the judges “made clear that all States are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system. This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference. (…) As the International Court of Justice has laid out today, the 1.5-degree goal of the Paris Agreement must be the basis of all climate policies under the current climate change treaty regime.”
Romina Pourmokhtari, Sweden’s environment and climate minister, was quoted in support of the decision and arguing it was not expected to have a negative impact on Sweden due to the country’s efforts and reputation as a climate leader.
Implications from the Decision
The ICJ ruling is not a legally binding decision, but rather an “Advisory Opinion”. This means that this latest decision does not create an impending “class-action-like” precedent for penalties to be imposed on the governments of polluting countries. However, while the ICJ’s decision does not necessarily bite, it most definitely barks.
As the Court argues, “despite having no binding force, the Court’s advisory opinions nevertheless carry great legal weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and help to keep the peace. In their own way, advisory opinions also contribute to the clarification and development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations between States.”
One important way in which this decision might be impactful moving forward is in informing the decisions of domestic courts on climate change-related cases brought against national governments. In its Mabo Ruling, the Australian High Court cited an ICJ advisory opinion on Western Sahara to support its decision to recognise the land rights of indigenous Australian groups.
“While the opinion itself does not carry legal force, the legal principles clarified by the Court are binding as part of international law, and the ICJ opinion points overall in the direction of climate justice. These principles will likely be used in courts the world over,” Professor Jorge Viñuales from Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy, and one of the top legal experts brought in by Vanuatu to help draft the original request to the Court, noted, commenting on the ICJ’s latest decision.
There is already plenty of precedent for domestic courts across Europe finding fossil fuel companies to be liable for the damage they have caused. Now, this ruling opens the door for the courts to continue to hold countries and their governments accountable for their failures.
¹ The Advisory Opinion was issued by a panel of 15 judges from Y different countries: the President of the Court, Judge Iwasawa Yuji (Japan); Vice-President Julia Sebutinde SEBUTINDE Uganda, Judge Peter Tomka (Slovakia), Judge Ronny Abraham (France), Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia), Judge Xue Hanqin (China), Judge Dalveer Bhandari (India), Judge Georg Nolte (Germany), Judge Hilary Charlesworth (Australia), Judge Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant (Brazil), Judge Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo (Mexico), Judge Sarah H. Cleveland (USA), Judge Bogdan-Lucian Aurescu (Romania), Judge Dire Tladi (South Africa), and Judge Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud (Jordan). The UN General Assembly elects ICJ judges.
