Advisory opinions put climate justice on legal map for Global South
In a year scarred by intensifying heatwaves, unprecedented wildfires, and mounting evidence of environmental collapse, two pivotal legal developments could prove to be the most significant climate milestones of our time. On July 23 this year, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a groundbreaking advisory opinion on the "Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change." Earlier, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued a transformative opinion linking climate change to human rights and affirming the legal concept of the "Rights of Nature."
Although advisory in nature and not legally binding, these rulings carry immense normative weight. Their moral authority and interpretive power are already reshaping the contours of international climate law. These opinions elevate the climate crisis beyond its traditional categorisation as an environmental or development issue, and assert its status as a legal, ethical and justice-oriented crisis. For countries across the Global South—especially Least Developed Countries (LDCs) such as Bangladesh—these rulings offer a strategic roadmap to convert vulnerability into legal and diplomatic strength.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. The ICJ's opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly and strongly supported by Global South nations, addresses fundamental questions: what are the countries legally obliged to do in the face of climate change, and what are the consequences of inaction?
The court's opinion is unequivocal. It asserts that states have obligations rooted not only in climate treaties, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, but also in customary international, human rights and maritime laws. These duties are transboundary in nature, meaning states are accountable for emissions and environmental harms that cross national borders, even when caused by private entities under their jurisdiction. Crucially, the ICJ recognises that a failure to mitigate emissions, adapt to climate risks, or contribute financially to climate resilience may constitute an internationally wrongful act. Formerly viewed as "soft law," principles such as the precautionary approach, intergenerational equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) are now affirmed as binding obligations under international law.
The IACtHR pushed the legal frontier even further. Its opinion breaks new ground by officially recognising the Rights of Nature, granting ecosystems legal personhood not for their usefulness to humans but for their inherent value.
This bold move aligns with long-standing indigenous philosophies throughout Latin America, Asia and Africa, and builds upon constitutional advancements in countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia. It treats nature as a legal subject capable of harm and entitled to remedy. Moreover, the IACtHR opinion firmly embeds the climate emergency within a human rights framework. It argues that climate change directly undermines a range of fundamental rights, including the rights to life, health, food, housing and cultural integrity. By breaking down the wall between "green" rights and "human" rights, the court asserts that both must be safeguarded together to uphold justice.
One of the most powerful impacts of these advisory rulings is the explicit linkage between climate action and human rights and their unifying effect. International environmental law has long been characterised by fragmentation, scattered across treaties, voluntary commitments and siloed conventions. Simultaneously, human rights, development and trade frameworks have often operated independently, treating climate change as a secondary concern. These advisory opinions challenge that disjointed framework. They confirm that climate obligations permeate every domain of international law. Human rights treaties must now be interpreted with environmental realities in mind. Environmental harm is no longer a peripheral issue; it is central to justice.
The ICJ stated that climate change "can significantly impair the enjoyment of human rights," including the rights to life, health, food and water. This reinforces a rapidly growing trend in climate litigation, anchoring claims in constitutional and human rights frameworks. Crucially, the ICJ recognised the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as "inherent in" and "essential for" the enjoyment of all other rights. Though the court stopped short of elaborating on the content of this right, its legal recognition paves the way for stronger advocacy, judicial review and policy-making.
For Bangladesh, this means that national development projects, infrastructure investments and climate adaptation efforts must be rights-based. They must prioritise marginalised communities, uphold procedural fairness and ensure environmental sustainability not as options, but as obligations.
Rights of Nature: A revolutionary legal tool
The IACtHR's endorsement of the Rights of Nature opens up a transformative legal avenue for environmental protection. In a country like Bangladesh—where rivers are lifelines, forests are vital ecosystems, and biodiversity is integral to cultural heritage—this concept could reshape environmental governance. Granting legal standing to rivers, wetlands or forests could empower communities to initiate legal action on behalf of nature, pre-emptively stop ecologically harmful projects and ensure that environmental decisions serve both people and planet. In the face of escalating ecological degradation, such innovations are both timely and essential.
Moreover, Bangladesh emits less than 0.5 percent of global greenhouse gases, yet is one of the world's most climate-vulnerable nations. Sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion and climate migration threaten the nation's agricultural base and its urban future. The ICJ stated unequivocally that states facing disproportionate climate harm must receive international cooperation, financial assistance, and technological support. Moreover, it emphasised that such cooperation is not an act of benevolence; it is a legal obligation under international law.
This recognition strengthens Bangladesh's position in climate diplomacy. It legitimises demands for loss and damage finance, reaffirms the right to adaptation support and provides a basis for future litigation, including against multinational polluters and states with high historical emissions.
For Bangladesh, these developments offer a unique opportunity to transform moral authority into legal action by aligning national laws with international norms, asserting rights in global forums and fostering inclusive, accountable climate governance. With its vulnerability underscoring its legitimacy, Bangladesh is well-positioned to lead in turning these legal milestones into concrete change.
The ICJ and IACtHR advisory opinions mark a transformative shift, reframing climate change as a legal duty, not a policy choice, and empowering the Global South as rights-holders, not mere victims. Yet, their impact hinges on political will, institutional capacity, and legal reform. For countries such as Bangladesh, these rulings offer vital tools for justice—but only if matched by investment in courts, legal training and governance. Without action, they risk becoming symbolic. With it, they can drive lasting, structural change. Climate justice now commands the law, and the world's conscience is listening.
Dr M Shawkat Alam is professor of international and environmental law at Macquarie University. He can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the authors' own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
Comments