In a landmark opinion that could transform global climate justice, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed that nations may be held accountable for environmental damage caused beyond their borders due to climate change.
The advisory opinion, delivered on Wednesday in The Hague, Netherlands, declared that countries failing to take effective steps to mitigate climate change could be in breach of international law. Although non-binding, the ICJ’s stance is expected to significantly influence future legal frameworks and global climate litigation.
Judge Yuji Iwasawa, who presided over the proceedings, acknowledged the complexities involved in attributing specific climate impacts to individual states but emphasized that inaction in the face of the climate crisis could constitute a wrongful act under international law.
“This is an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life,” Iwasawa stated during the ruling.
The historic case was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, supported by over 130 countries; many of them small island and climate-vulnerable states. It originated in 2019 from a campaign by law students in the Pacific who faced the devastating realities of rising sea levels and intensifying storms.
One of the ICJ’s key conclusions is that states have a legal duty to prevent environmental harm not only within their territories but also across borders. The court underscored that environmental destruction, regardless of geographic boundaries, remains a shared global concern.
Importantly, the court also affirmed that access to a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” constitutes a fundamental human right, marking a significant development in the legal recognition of environmental justice.
The ICJ rejected arguments from some developed nations including the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia, that existing climate frameworks such as the 2015 Paris Agreement are sufficient. Instead, the court emphasized that general principles of international law impose broader obligations on all states, irrespective of their participation in specific treaties.
Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, Ralph Regenvanu, hailed the judgment as a pivotal moment for vulnerable nations.
“This ruling is a lifeline,” he said in a statement to the Associated Press, adding that traditional climate diplomacy has been too slow to deliver tangible results.
The court’s opinion adds momentum to a growing trend in climate litigation. In recent years, international bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have ruled in favor of stronger governmental responsibility in addressing environmental threats.
Legal analysts suggest that this opinion by the ICJ could empower more states and even individuals to bring climate-related claims in both international and domestic courts, signaling a new era of legal accountability for global environmental stewardship.
