top of page

From Islands to the Hague: A Dawn for Climate Justice

ree

I. From campus campaign to courtroom

The story begins in 2019 when 27 students at the University of the South Pacific decided they had to act. They formed the Pacific Island Students Fighting for Climate Change group and urged leaders at the Pacific Island Forum to take the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague. These students came from nations where climate change is not an abstract debate but a daily and existential threat.

Their idea spread quickly. Soon young people from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe joined forces, creating the World’s Youth for Climate Justice. In 2021 the government of Vanuatu formally announced it would lead the diplomatic push for an advisory opinion. Within a year more than 1,500 civil society organisations had joined the campaign.

Eight of the sixteen countries that ultimately put the questions to the ICJ were members of the Commonwealth. They included small island developing states, least developed countries and developed economies. This diversity gave the effort credibility and showed that climate action is a shared priority that cuts across geography and levels of development.

II. What the United Nations asked

The conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) in April 2022 was emphatic: it is code red for humanity, off track to limit global warming to 1.5°C; the scale of change required is unprecedented, and the window for action is rapidly closing.

On 29 March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution A/RES/77/276 which requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the matter of obligations and responsibility for addressing the Climate Change crisis. The ICJ is the UN’s principal judicial body, often called the World Court. The Resolution was adopted by consensus, reflecting broad agreement amongst States that climate change is one of the most pressing shared problems that the international community is facing and that interpretation of existing international law on this matter would strengthen the mitigation and adaptation processes of all States. ICJ’s Advisory opinions are not legally binding in the same way as judgments, but they carry enormous moral and political weight.

The UN resolution presented the Court with two overarching questions. First, what are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system for present and future generations. Second, what are the legal consequences for states that, by action or inaction, cause significant harm to the climate and the environment, especially for vulnerable countries and communities.

These questions required the ICJ to interpret not only climate treaties like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement but also human rights law, environmental law, the law of the sea and principles of customary international law.


III. A truly global legal moment

The proceedings drew an unprecedented level of engagement. The Court received more than 90 written submissions and 100+ oral statements, the most participation in its history. States large and small made their voices heard, as did major international organisations such as the African Union, the European Union and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Other courts were considering similar requests at the same time. Chile and Colombia asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for an opinion on the intersection of climate change and human rights. The Commission of Small Island States approached the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea about obligations under maritime law. Together these advocacy efforts led to a global push for judicial guidance on the climate crisis.


IV. History at the Hague

On 23 July 2025 the ICJ delivered its landmark advisory opinion affirmed the growing role of international law in addressing the climate crisis.[1] The Court has provided a detailed legal catalogue of obligations relating to climate change from diverse sources of international law – and clarified how these interact – in ways that will prove valuable to vulnerable states and communities, including in domestic litigation.

First, the Court rejected the argument that obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions come only from climate-specific treaties. It found that countries also have duties under human rights law, the law of the sea, customary international law and other relevant treaties. It is striking that the Court leaned heavily on systemic integration rather than the principle of lex specialis.[2] The Court connected the erga omnes character of these obligations to the nature of the environment as a ‘global common good’.[3]

Second, the Court held that the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit in the Paris Agreement is legally binding. This is not just an aspirational goal but a concrete benchmark under international law.[4]

Third, the Court found that States that breach their climate obligations under international law can be required to provide restitution, compensation or satisfaction to States harmed by climate change.[5] This could mean rebuilding damaged infrastructure, restoring ecosystems or paying monetary compensation to affected states.[6]

Fourth, the Court put the fossil fuel industry firmly in the spotlight. The Court held that Governments that continue to approve new fossil fuel projects, grant exploration licences or provide subsidies could be in breach of their international obligations.[7]

Fifth, the Court made clear that major global emitters have no escape clause. They remain bound by customary international law to reduce emissions.[8]

Finally, the Court ruled that states which become permanently uninhabitable due to sea level rise will retain their full legal statehood and maritime rights even if their populations are displaced.[9]

Perhaps most strikingly, the opinion was unanimous. 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.


V. The Court’s deliberate caution

The ICJ did not address every issue raised by the climate justice movement. It did not single out specific countries, nor did it venture into debates about the rights of nature, extraterritorial jurisdiction or global redistribution of resources.

This restraint was intentional. By avoiding politically explosive specifics, the judges secured a unanimous ruling and protected the Court’s credibility. The downside is that the opinion’s broad language leaves room for different interpretations. Climate advocates will read it as progressive roadmap for accountability, while same formulations, especially regarding attribution, causation, and reparation, can be interpreted in ways that dilute or even deflect responsibility.[10] 


VI. Theoretical Implication of ICJ’s Opinion

The opinion also demonstrates how soft law and hard law interact in international climate governance. While ‘soft law’ is generally regarded as inferior to legally binding ‘hard law’ instruments in its capacity to sanction states for non- compliance, in the current geopolitical context, soft law instruments often provide the means of ‘escape from a no-go situation, not a deliberate ‘alternative’ to hard law’.[11] 

The ICJ’s reasoning draws on soft law instruments like the Paris Agreement but grounds them in binding obligations from other areas of international law such as state responsibility. Therefore, as an agent for the promotion of climate governance, soft law can be dubbed as a ‘vehicle of socialization that promotes a collective approach among a broad variety of actors’.[12]


VII. Practical Implications of ICJ’s Opinion

For climate diplomacy, the opinion offers a common legal language for tackling difficult issues like loss and damage. When global leaders met at Sharm el-Sheikh Climate Change Conference aka COP 27 they called for scaled-up action and financing in this area. States are due to submit their third NDCs in advance of COP30 in November 2025. The court clearly acknowledged that states have limited discretion on the determination of their NDCs as it “must be capable of making an adequate contribution to the achievement of the temperature goal” and represent a state’s "highest possible ambition" in the context of the temperature goal. 

For climate litigation, the opinion is a powerful tool. National courts can draw on it to compel governments to strengthen climate policies, much as Dutch courts did in the Urgenda case. It also opens the door to interstate litigation, where vulnerable countries could sue high emitters for climate damage under doctrines like transboundary harm and state responsibility. As Judge Cleveland notes in her declaration, these obligations can also inform international dispute resolution in other fora, particularly in the context of investor-state dispute settlement.[13] The Indian Supreme Court has already taken giant strides in recognising both constitutional and private law rights in the context of climate change. In its landmark ruling in MK Ranjitsinh v Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court recognised a “right against the adverse effects of climate change” as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.[14]

For corporate accountability, the opinion increases pressure on states to regulate private actors. Fossil fuel companies could face lawsuits for contributing to emissions if governments fail to control them. This aligns in part with the Indian context, where the Supreme Court has already incorporated several of these principles, including the polluter pays principle into domestic law, applying them both to the state (the vertical effect) and to private entities such as individuals, companies, and other legal persons (the horizontal effect).


VIII. Looking into the Future

For countries like Seychelles, which contribute less than 0.003 percent of global emissions yet face devastating impacts, the ICJ’s opinion is more than a legal text. It is a statement of solidarity and a recognition that the law can serve as a shield for the vulnerable.

The opinion also sends a signal. To governments, it says that climate inaction now carries legal risk. To negotiators, it says that climate justice has a basis in law. To citizens, it says that demands for accountability are backed by the highest court in the world.

Afterall, the World Court is not just an institution but also a symbol. It represents a promise: that we can build a world governed by laws and by the international rule of law, where States, and peoples, co-exist in peace, dignity and in larger freedom. When it issues a judgment or an advisory opinion, the Court not only performs its institutional role but also acts as an expression of hope —that this promise will be, must be realised, for our sakes and for all those who will come after.

 


[2] Para 171

[4] Para 224

[5] Para 450

[6] Paras 451-454

[7] Para 427

[8] Para 315

[9] Para 363

[11] A Peters, ‘Soft Law as a New Mode of Governance’ in U Diedrichs, W Reiners, and W Wessels (eds), The Dynamics of Change in EU Governance (Edward Elgar 2011) 37

[12] Vincent Chetail, International Migration Law (OUP 2019) 291

 
 
 

Comments

International Relations & Foreign Policy Committee 2025

bottom of page