The ICJ ruling on climate action can boost Global South's voice
On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered one of the most important judicial opinions in the history of international environmental law. In a landmark advisory opinion, the World Court clarified the legal obligation of states to address the climate crisis the world faces. The UN General Assembly requested the opinion through resolution 77/276. It requested the court to answer two questions regarding climate change. The court commenced by first determining that the questions were legal in character and that providing opinions on them was under its jurisdiction.
The ICJ concluded that states have explicit legal duties to safeguard the climate system against anthropogenic (caused by humans) greenhouse gas emissions. These responsibilities are not merely abstract or theoretical but rather based on the laws of state responsibility, human rights, and the international environment.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. The implications of the ICJ opinion are far from symbolic, even though it is not legally binding. However, the opinion is likely to change the global climate politics, litigation tactics, and diplomatic discourses. It also establishes the foundation for a reorganisation of international climate accountability.
The advisory opinion highlights several important points, including the following: first, states must take precautionary and equitable measures, such as regulating private sector actors whose emissions significantly contribute to climate change; second, states must prevent significant harm to the environment and climate system in the interest of both present and future generations; and, third, states may be held internationally responsible when significant environmental harm occurs, particularly if the affected parties include small islands, developing states, or vulnerable populations.
Despite arguments from major emitters of greenhouse gases such as the United States and China, the ICJ ruled that obligations to protect the climate extend beyond the Paris Climate Agreement. This greatly supports future legal claims by establishing the binding authority of both customary international law and general international law norms (such as human rights law and the law of the sea rules).
The opinion represents the highest degree of legal consensus within the main judicial body of the United Nations, having been unanimously adopted by all sitting judges. Only five times in the 79-year history of the ICJ has an opinion been unanimously adopted, which is a remarkable indication of moral urgency and legal clarity.
Although the opinion clarifies and elevates current legal duties, it does not create a new law. Nevertheless, the clarity the court gave to the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change will be felt at several governmental and legal levels.
For example, in its opinion, the court names certain activities as possible transgressions of international law, including the production, subsidies, and exploration of fossil fuels. States are now under more pressure to dismantle fossil fuel industries rather than just cut emissions as a result of this clear language. As a result, countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, and those under the EU are probably going to face more pressure. Even though some of these countries have made net-zero commitments, their delayed implementation and ongoing support of the fossil fuel sector risk being interpreted as breaches of their international legal duties.
Another important thing is that the ICJ opinion may serve as a legal foundation for a surge in climate litigation, particularly in European domestic courts. It will certainly add strong support to domestic decisions, such as in the Urgenda case in the Netherlands that compelled the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent by 2020. ICJ's opinion will inspire and allow national courts to require more aggressive national climate policies. The opinion will act as new legal fuel for lawsuits against large polluters, both public and private.
The ICJ's clarification for the first time that states must both prevent and repair climate damage opens the door for legal demands for reparations or compensation, such as repairing ecosystems or damaged infrastructure or paying compensation to affected people. For small island and climate-vulnerable countries like Bangladesh, Chad, Ecuador, the Maldives, and other Global South states, this opinion offers a potent legal tool. With the support of the highest court in the world, these states can now contend that wealthier countries have a legal and moral obligation to take decisive action and support climate mitigation and adaptation, and loss and damage due to climate change.
Additionally, this could open the door for interstate climate litigation. The legal doctrines of transboundary harm and state responsibility may now give affected countries the confidence to file lawsuits against high-emitting countries. Their long-standing call for climate justice is now a matter of legal entitlement, thanks to the advisory opinion. The opinion may inspire formal legal cases by climate-impacted nations against high-emitting states, asserting breach of international law duty and seeking reparations.
Activists, lawyers, and civil society groups now also have a global legal standard to invoke when challenging national climate breaches or inaction. In terms of corporate accountability, multinational fossil fuel companies may be subject to new lawsuits based on their complicity in states' failure to effectively regulate emissions. And states can be asked to regulate or/and stop their corporations from emitting greenhouse gases. These probable consequences of the opinion will energise global climate litigation.
Even though the ICJ's opinion was presented clearly and legally, its application may give rise to some geopolitical tensions. At the UN's upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP) 30 in Belém, Global South nations will probably use this decision to push for faster climate finance, debt relief, and reparations. With wealthier countries unwilling to take on additional financial or legal responsibilities, this will exacerbate tensions. The geopolitics surrounding fossil fuels are expected to intensify as the court's opinion subtly criticises the ongoing growth of fossil fuel production, rendering the climate policies of oil-exporting countries (such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and the United States) politically and legally open to questions. This might hasten future conflicts over resources and trade tensions among states in the backdrop of the rising protectionism and anti-globalisation wave.
The ICJ's advisory opinion is a watershed moment in international climate governance. It means that the Global South can shift its approach to climate justice from simply asking for assistance to demanding legal action. The ultimate success, however, will depend on how the wealthier nations with a greater emitting record respond to the call by the World Court.
Shamir Shehab is a public policy analyst focused on the intersection of climate change, environmental sustainability, and development. He is managing partner at Catalyzing Sustainable Transformation (CaST) Network.
Dr Ridwanul Hoque, a former professor of law at the University of Dhaka, is a governance and legal consultant based in Melbourne.
Views expressed in this article are the author's 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