Climate Change is an Existential Threat to Humanity by International Court of Justice, agencies 1:43pm 24th Jul, 2025   23 July 2025    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, read out by the President of the Court, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, on Wednesday.    The UN’s principal judicial body ruled that States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and act with due diligence and cooperation to fulfill this obligation.    This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.    The Court further ruled that if States breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation depending on the circumstances.    UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the historic decision. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. “The world must respond.”    The case was “unlike any that have previously come before the court,” President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa said while reading the court’s unanimous advisory opinion outlining the legal obligations of United Nations member states with regard to climate change.    This case was not simply a “legal problem” but “concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,” Iwasawa said.    “A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other; above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom at the individual social and political levels to change our habits and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come”.    "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court president Yuji Iwasawa said. "The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include … full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction."    The court added that a "sufficient direct and certain causal nexus" had to be shown "between the wrongful act and the injury".    The Court used Member States’ commitments to both environmental and human rights treaties to justify this decision. UN Member States are parties to a variety of environmental treaties, including ozone layer treaties, the Biodiversity Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and many more, which oblige them to protect the environment for people worldwide and for future generations.    The right to “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” since Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change.    In September 2021, the Pacific Island State of Vanuatu announced that it would seek an advisory opinion from the Court on climate change. This initiative was inspired by the youth group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, which underscored the need to act to address climate change, particularly in small island States.    After the country gaind the support of other UN Member States, the UN General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on two questions: (1) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the environment? and (2) What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations when they cause harm to the environment?    The ICJ ruling was welcomed by Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology & Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management for the Republic of Vanuatu.    “Today’s ruling is a landmark opinion that confirms what we, vulnerable nations have been saying, and we’ve known for so long, that states do have legal obligations to act on climate change, and these obligations are guaranteed by international law. They’re guaranteed by human rights law, and they’re grounded in the duty to protect our environment, which we heard the court referred to so much,” Regenvanu said.    Mr Regenvanu hailed the court's decision as a "landmark milestone". "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time," he said. "Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the US's influence, along with the loss of climate finance and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition following the US's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, major polluters, past and present, cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed."    Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu’s ICJ case, said the opinion meant that the “era where fossil fuel producers can freely produce and can argue that their climate policies are a matter of discretion—they’re free to decide on the climate policies—that era is over. We have entered an era of accountability, in which states can be held to account for their current emissions if they’re excessive but also for what they have failed to do in the past.”    Vishal Prasad, the director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and one of the students who initiated the case, said the advisory opinion would play a major role in holding polluters accountable.    "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," he said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future."    ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the climate "must be protected for present and future generations" and the adverse effect of a warming planet "may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life".    The detailed ICJ advisory opinion dealt with obligations of states under various climate conventions and treaties and humanitarian law. The court concluded that in terms of the climate agreements, state parties:    To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change.    Have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.    To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, have a duty to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the convention. To the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the protocol.    To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in taking measures in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the agreement.    To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive, nationally determined contributions, which, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.    State parties to the Paris agreement have an obligation to pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions.    State parties to the Paris agreement have obligations of adaptation and cooperation, including through technology and financial transfers, which must be performed in good faith.    In addition, the court was of the opinion that customary international law sets forth obligations for states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.    These obligations include the following:    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 in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.    States have a duty to cooperate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires sustained and continuous forms of cooperation by states when taking measures to prevent such harm.    State parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the ozone layer and to the protocol and to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete ozone layer and its Kigali amendment, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, have obligations under these treaties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.    State parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to adopt measures to protect and preserve the marine environment, including from the adverse effects of climate change, and to cooperate in good faith.    However, the court did not end there; it was of the opinion that states have obligations under international human rights law and are required to take “measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.”    The court said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was a precondition for exercising many human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing.    * ICJ Summary: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (7pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf    * ICJ complete advisory: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (140pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf    http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1tey5ro2w http://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/press-releases http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?14459466/ICJ-advisory-opinion-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/global-international-court-of-justices-landmark-opinion-bolsters-fight-for-climate-justice-and-accountability/ http://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/world-s-highest-court-confirms-countries-must-act-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-in-a-once-in-a-generation-legal-decision/    http://earth.org/landmark-moment-for-climate-justice-reactions-pour-in-after-icj-delivers-historic-opinion-on-states-climate-change-obligations/ http://www.dw.com/en/worlds-top-court-says-healthy-environment-is-a-human-right/a-73373617 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/23/healthy-environment-is-a-human-right-top-un-court-rules http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/07/climate-change-existential-threat-to-humanity-says-icj/ http://www.ciel.org/project-update/advancing-climate-justice-at-the-icj/    http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/luciano-lliuya-v-rwe-a-major-step-forward-for-climate-justice/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2025-snapshot/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/de-fossilising-economies-key-course-correction-climate-change-and-human http://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/070/22/pdf/g2507022.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/un-experts-hail-landmark-inter-american-court-opinion-states-extensive http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/07/15/the-right-to-a-healthy-environment-as-a-catalyst-for-urgent-and-ambitious-climate-action-at-the-iacthr/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session57/advance-versions/A-HRC-57-30-AEV.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/crccgc26-general-comment-no-26-2023-childrens-rights Visit the related web page
	Next (older) news item