A truly momentous opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice on the obligations of countries to address climate change. This will set a new baseline in terms of what countries must do to address the existential climate crisis.

The opinion adds significant detail from a wide range of international law obligations to the nature of countries' obligations to adopt adequate mitigation and adaptation policies and signals that they can be held accountable under international law if these obligations are breached.

"This is a historic Advisory opinion from the ICJ. It clearly sets out the climate change obligations of all States. In particular it makes clear that under international law all States have an obligation to mitigate the impacts of carbon emissions and maintain a global temperature of 1.5 C. States also have an obligation to limit fossil fuel production and consumption (including the granting of exploration licences and provision of subsidies) which will be a major issue for Australia. Finally, the Advisory opinion states that all states have international human rights obligations, including the rights to ensure life, health and the rights to a clean and safe environment. This is a historic win for the island nation of Vanuatu. These obligations will have profound implications both for future climate litigation and for future climate negotiations between states in the United Nations under various Treaties".

The UN’s International Court of Justice has provided a ruling that defines a clear legal obligation for nations and states to address climate change. This is not unexpected as it has been a very clear responsibility in the science provided by large volumes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s 30,000 volunteer scientists have shown the world, since 1992, the truth about climate change and how the science suggests the world can address it through nations and states.

However, the rogue states that are in climate denial will only be embarrassed by the global press as there can be no binding obligations. Nothing can be done by ICJ other than provide extra moral weight to the UN’s stance.

The major benefit in this ruling is to bolster the nations who are committed to do more and to help the nations like the small island states, to prepare for the worst. Australia should now play a much bigger role in our region.

The most significant point that is now being made by most states who agree with this ruling and are committed to net zero by 2050, is that the pathway to achieve this is unfolding so rapidly that leading nations, states and cities, will be the ones who achieve the most economic advantage. The rogue states will be left behind and history will show they gained nothing by trying to keep their fossil fuel-based economies going for as long as possible. See webinar on this ‘Why Donald Trump Cant Stop Net Zero’.

"This is a historic ruling. This is the largest body of evidence that the Court has ever had to work with. Examining that evidence, the Court supported the consensus from scientists: climate change is real, climate change is driven by human actions such as the burning of fossil fuels, and that we need to keep global warming below 1.5C for the best chance to preserve our environment and way of life.
 
The Court’s ruling opens up pathways for states to be held accountable. States must act to protect not only their own citizens but the global citizenry. If states fail to act to halt the climate crisis they can be held liable.
 
Importantly for Australia, legal avenues have now been opened for reparations payments from high-emitting countries to low-emitting countries. How Australia responds to this ruling will have dramatic implications for its relationships with its Pacific neighbours. We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy.
 
This case did not emerge from nowhere. It began in a classroom in Vanuatu and grew into a global movement. The Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change campaign has just secured the most important legal finding in the fight for climate justice."

"This is a historic ruling from the ICJ that powerfully sets out the legal obligations that all states have to take action to address climate change, which the court recognised is a “urgent and existential threat” of “planetary proportions” that “imperils all forms of life”. 

The ICJ stated that countries' nationally determined contributions (NDCs) prepared under the Paris Agreement are not discretionary but must meet certain standards - they must be capable of making an adequate contribution to global temperature goals and countries must do their utmost to ensure that NDCs represent their highest possible ambition. Australia is currently preparing to update its NDC and it will need to meet these standards.

The court also confirmed that since Paris, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial level has become the scientifically based consensus. 

The ICJ also stated that the failure of states to take appropriate action to protect the climate system - including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies - may constitute an internationally wrongful act. This is particularly relevant for Australia, given that Australia is the second largest exporter of fossil fuel CO2 emissions."

"The Court's Opinion was unanimous - climate change treaties, customary international law, international human rights law, and other applicable environmental treaties set forth binding obligations for States to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In reaching this conclusion, the Court made several significant pronouncements.

First, that States are under stringent duties of due diligence and cooperation to ensure that their activities are sufficient to meet the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Second, that where a State fails to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — this may constitute an internationally wrongful act for which the State owes reparation.

Third, that States have an obligation to regulate private actors under their jurisdiction in order to prevent environmental damage.

Fourth, that a clean healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of human rights. And fifth, that where a State loses land territory due to climate induced sea-level rise, it does not need to redraw its maritime boundaries nor does it necessarily lose its status as a recognised State in interational law. In reaching all of these conclusions, the Court relied primarily on IPCC reports, which participants in the proceedings agreed constitute the best available science." 

"The Court has ruled that countries have broad legal obligations to protect the Earth’s climate and prevent harms caused by climate change: under climate-specific treaties such as the Paris Agreement, but also under human rights law, the law of the sea, and general principles of international law.  This means governments must do more than set an emissions target. They must properly regulate the fossil fuel industry to protect ecosystems and communities from further harm. 

Countries could be liable under international law for failing to address "fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies". The implications of this ruling will reverberate in courts, parliaments and boardrooms the world over.  

It certainly has huge implications for Australia - as one of the world's largest exporters of coal and gas.  Since 2000, Australia has approved hundreds of oil, gas and coal projects. Dozens more are in the approvals pipeline. The Australian government must heed the message from the Hague. The days of impunity for the fossil fuel industry are coming to an end."

"The International Court of Justice has today delivered a watershed moment in international law and climate justice. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court offers the most authoritative and integrated exposition yet of States’ legal obligations to address anthropogenic climate change. Crucially, the Court affirms that these obligations are not confined to treaty commitments under the Paris Agreement, but also arise under customary international law, the law of the se, and international human rights law. In doing so, the Court elevates climate protection from a matter of political discretion to one of binding legal duty.

For the first time, the Court confirms that a failure to act with due diligence — including failure to regulate fossil fuel production, licensing, and subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act. These obligations are owed erga omnes, engaging not only inter-State duties but responsibilities to present and future generations and the international community as a whole.

This Opinion signals a paradigm shift: the era of climate voluntarism has come to a close. The world’s highest court has declared that inaction is not just morally negligent — it is legally indefensible. States must now act with urgency, ambition, and fidelity to law, or risk the prospect of legal accountability."

"The ICJ’s authoritative analysis embeds important principles of international human rights law, charting a clear course for the future.

The court has affirmed that people may be entitled to international protection – that is, as refugees or beneficiaries of complementary protection – where the effects of climate change expose them to life-threatening risks. This is now the most authoritative statement we have that States must not send people to any place ‘where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the right to life’ linked to the adverse impacts of climate change.

The ICJ makes clear that even if sea-level rise means a State’s population is forced to move and territory is lost, the State continues to exist. This, too, affirms a line of authority that has emerged in recent years, including in the 2023 Pacific Declaration on the Continuity of Statehood and the Protection of Persons in the Face of Climate Change-Related Sea-Level Rise."

"Importantly, the Court recognised that States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence, and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.

It follows that a State’s failure to act with due diligence to prevent significant climate harm (for example, by taking measures to regulate and limit the GHG emissions of private actors within its jurisdiction) may constitute an “internationally wrongful act,” and open pathways for reparations, including compensation and restitution.

For vulnerable nations, the Court has laid the groundwork for them to hold major emitters accountable, and as such, represents a powerful legal tool to drive climate action.
The Court also recognised that the fact that the climate crisis is a global problem does not absolve individual States of responsibility. While it might be more difficult to establish a causal link in such cases, it is not impossible to do so.

For Australia, the Opinion casts a shadow over the Australian Government’s reluctance to take more ardent action to regulate major greenhouse gas emitters and reduce emissions. Domestically, the Opinion strengthens claims that the Australian Government owes vulnerable communities within its jurisdiction a duty of care to take meaningful action to reduce emissions."

"The ICJ strongly asserted that states can be held liable for climate harm to present and future generations under international law.

This harm could occur on and beyond their jurisdiction. There is an obligation on states to pass laws to regulate companies and failure to do so could be a wrongful act under international law. The right to a healthy environment includes a healthy climate."