*** This post is being updated as further commentary lands ***
Health, climate and community leaders have warmly welcomed an International Court of Justice opinion that States are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system.
The much-anticipated decision says States may be held accountable for failing to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies.
It also notes that a State may be considered responsible for not taking the necessary regulatory and legislative measures to limit the quantity of emissions released by private actors under its jurisdiction.
The advisory opinion also holds that the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.
Concluding the reading of the advisory opinion (view here), ICJ President Judge Yuji Iwasawa said the questions that the United Nations General Assembly had asked the court to consider were more than a legal problem but “concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet”.
The case was the brainchild of a group of young law students from the low-lying Pacific islands of Vanuatu, and was supported by the government of Vanuatu. Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ruling as a “lifeline” for Pacific communities facing some of the worst impacts of climate change.
“Today, the world’s smallest countries have made history. The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities,” he told media.
Below is a compilation of responses, from Australia and globally. Sources include Francis Nona, Professor Nick Talley, Dr Kate Wylie, Professor Aletha Ward, Susi Tegen, Dr Jeni Miller, Pacific Islands Climate Action Network and other Pacific Islands groups, the Climate Council, Amnesty International, and Oxfam.
A critical turning point
Francis Nona, a Torres Strait Islander man of the Dhoeybaw Clan, lecturer in the Chancellery Division, Indigenous Strategy, Carumba Institute, Queensland University of Technology, and board member of the Climate and Health Alliance
The ICJ’s advisory opinion is a turning point in global climate justice – and Australia must not stand still. This ruling reinforces what First Nations peoples have long known and asserted: that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is not only a right, but a foundation for life, culture, and health.
In light of the Pabai & Kabai decision, where the Federal Court failed to recognise a duty of care owed to Torres Strait Islander communities, the ICJ ruling offers renewed legal, moral, and political leverage.
It shifts the terrain: climate inaction is not just negligent – it’s a breach of international human rights law.
I call on the Australian Prime Minister to publicly acknowledge the ICJ ruling and commit to aligning national climate policy with this international legal standard. This means stronger emissions targets, accelerated adaptation funding, and direct investment in Indigenous-led climate solutions.
Governments at all levels – federal, state, territory, and local – must recognise that climate change is a health crisis.
The ruling reinforces their obligation to act decisively in protecting communities, particularly those already bearing the brunt of climate-related harm. This includes supporting community-controlled health services, ensuring safe housing and water, and resourcing culturally grounded mental health responses.
For First Nations peoples, the ruling affirms our rights to Country, culture, and continuity. Climate policy must now centre Indigenous leadership – not as stakeholders, but as rights holders and sovereign decision-makers.
The National Health and Climate Strategy needs urgent funding and implementation. Without real investment, it risks being symbolic.
This ruling gives added weight to our advocacy: governments are now on notice. Failure to act on climate is not just policy failure – it is a violation of human rights, health justice, and intergenerational responsibility.
This is a moment to take a stand. To move beyond “consultation” and deliver tangible, rights-based climate health action, grounded in justice, led by community, and accountable to the people most impacted.
Prime Minister must respond
Professor Nick Talley AC, Chair of Doctors for the Environment Australia
It is big news and a world first! After reviewing mountains of evidence, the UN International Court of Justice issued a very strongly worded unanimous statement recognising there is a climate emergency (an “urgent and existential threat”), and all states are obligated to take action to protect people and limit global warming to the level set by the Paris agreement (which is already likely breached).
The judges heard from over 100 countries, organisations and experts. They met with the expert scientists on the UN International Governmental Panel on Climate Change. The decision is consistent with the overwhelming evidence fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) are serious health hazards, cause premature deaths, and drive most of climate change.
The ruling has big implications for the Australian Government. Australia is a signatory to the Statute of the International Court of Justice ratified 1 November, 1945 and Australia accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
A public statement from the PM about the ruling and what Australia will now do is warranted. This is because it is stated a countries failure to protect, including through production or subsidies for fossil fuels (which Australia excels at), may amount to “wrongful acts”, which based on the scientific evidence is in fact the case.
Notably governments could be held responsible for harm caused by corporations too, and based on the ICJ decision should be.
Reduction of our reliance on fossil fuels to near zero in Australia will improve health and save lives (globally in the millions). Yes, this must be done in a responsible way so as to allow enough time for renewables (which are much cheaper) to replace coal, oil and gas, but speeding up the timeline will save more lives. Pollution from fossil fuels is, like smoking, a silent killer, increasing heart and lung disease, as well as having other serious health impacts (including negatively impacting learning ability and increasing foetal risks). The ICJ judgement also suggests approving new coal, oil and gas projects likely represents a failure of Government to protect lives.
The ruling gives moral and legal support for change. It seems likely more court challenges worldwide will follow the ICJ ruling.
The Australia Government may face the courts from challenges by our near neighbours going underwater (our fossil fuel exports being a significant contributor). Government justification at all levels for continuing the fossil fuel subsidies (in the billions) will be seen as a national disgrace and may come under legal scrutiny if not altered going forward.
Put our health before politics
Dr Kate Wylie, a GP and Executive Director of DEA
The International Court of Justice’s ruling that countries must achieve concrete emissions reductions is a welcome piece of good news amidst a bleak climate landscape.
It lays blame at the feet of any country that continues to threaten the health of our planet by enabling our dependency on fossil fuels, and importantly signals that they are legally culpable for doing so.
As Judge Yuji Iwasawa states,”the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights”, and the failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in “full reparations to injured states”.
We can but hope that our Government is properly digesting this ruling.
It is shameful that Australia continues to enable fossil fuel expansion and that we do not have sufficiently robust laws to prevent our opening of new coal mines and gas fields.
Our Government is well aware of the harms that fossil fuels cause in terms of global heating, climate change and air pollution, and yet we do not include climate considerations when making decisions on fossil fuel production.
It is time to move on from fossil fuels.
Our Government has an ethical responsibility to include the impacts of climate change when approving energy projects. They have an opportunity to include climate considerations in legislation, and with the Greens putting a climate trigger on the table as the first bill of the 48th Parliament, Prime Minister Albanese and his cabinet might well consider the ICJ’s ruling before summarily dismissing another party’s proposal.
As we all face worsening climate harms, this is the time to put party divisions aside and put the health of our community ahead of political infighting.
The ruling also serves to remind all health professionals and health professional bodies of our obligations to work for our planet’s health. We must continue to call for the full funding and enacting of the National Health and Climate Strategy to ensure that our medical workforce is prepared to treat the health impacts of climate change that are an ever-increasing part of our clinical practice.
The ICJ deserves our deep gratitude in making this positive ruling, as does Vanuatu’s special envoy on climate change Ralph Regenvanu and all who worked with him in bringing this case to the court.
What we must remember though, is that it is deeply distressing that they have had to do it; that despite the abundant scientific evidence emissions around the world are still rising and that the fossil fuel industry and the countries that enable them continue to sacrifice our children’s future for their own greed.
Face the truth
Professor Aletha Ward, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland Poche Centre and a board member of the Climate and Health Alliance
Ward said she was thrilled by the decision which “lets us confront the uncomfortable truth: the neglect of our environment today will be a betrayal of future generations, eroding the very foundations of inter generational health equity and justice”.
Real action needed, beyond optics
Susi Tegen, CEO of the National Rural Health Alliance
Tegen highlighted the importance of oceans for climate regulation and noted the delayed response to the algal bloom disaster in South Australia, and the need for more comprehensive action.
She urged the Federal Government to do more on the algal bloom in SA, and for all levels of government to take genuine action to deal with transition and support of industries, power, electricity and Australia’s income, as without this, “the words are hollow and will just lose people along the way”. She stressed the importance of not making this “a political game”.
“It needs to be an intergovernmental approach, not a blame game. Whether people believe in ‘climate change’ or not, the environment is hotter and more unpredictable, we have more natural disasters, algal bloom, and people are feeling the change in housing, wellbeing and their health.
“We must also be willing to stand up and place pressure on other countries, who have significantly higher emissions.
“Health implications in general from heat, droughts, fires and floods in particular affect rural communities more than urban centres. Housing, food, water, the basic foundation of Maslows hierarchy of needs are affected. Mental health, wellbeing and disease security are also impacted.”
The impact of the ruling on climate health advocacy and action would depend upon “real action” being taken globally.
“For some it is seen as a toothless tiger, it is any advisory opinion on States’ obligations with respect to climate change and the legal consequences for failing to live up to these obligations. It is non-binding, carries considerable legal and moral authority.
Regarding the National Health and Climate Strategy implementation and funding, Tegen said she understood that “progress in strengthening governance, improving emergency preparedness, and addressing health system emissions” had been made.
“But these are small moves for people who have either been part of floods, droughts and fires and have only just recovered from the last disaster a few years ago. Or like in Kangaroo Island where global bloom is killing wildlife. Action needs to be taken in genuine grass roots solutions, in insurance, in recovery and support prior to the disaster recurring.
“There are too many activities for optics and not enough action at short term response to disasters, medium and long term preventative solutions and action. In the end we are a small population, but we can make some difference, and people and industries need to be supported to do so.”
Historic ruling
Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director, Global Climate and Health Alliance
The International Court of Justice has delivered a historic affirmation: the climate crisis is a health crisis – and failure to act is a failure to protect life.
The Court made clear that fossil fuels are the root cause of this crisis, and that a state’s failure to curb emissions – including through fossil fuel production, subsidies, or exploration – may constitute an internationally wrongful act.
“This ruling confirms that governments and corporations have a legal duty to prevent further harm, uphold the right to health, and safeguard future generations. From deadly heat and toxic air to disease and displacement, the Court’s message is clear – human health is not collateral damage.
“Health workers and advocates now have powerful legal backing to demand bold, science-based climate action rooted in justice including a just transition away from fossil fuels, for health and the duty to protect life across all ages and borders.”
International law on our side
Pacific Islands Climate Action Network in Suva
International Court of Justice has confirmed what Pacific peoples have carried in story and struggle for generations. States and corporations have binding obligations to cut emissions, protect human rights guided by the principle of intergenerational equity, and repair the harm already done. This is not new law. It is legal clarity that matches the moral truth frontline communities have always voiced.
The opinion gives governments nowhere to hide. Voluntary pledges while expanding fossil fuels will not pass muster as the Court finds that Governments are required to protect people’s rights to life, a healthy environment, and self-determination – with the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment being a precondition to respect, protect and fulfill all other human rights. The ruling offers a compass for negotiations, courtrooms and parliaments. It strengthens efforts to secure public finance, phase out coal, oil and gas, and compel polluters to pay for loss and damage. The Court also makes clear that breaching these climate obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act and carries legal consequences, including full reparations.
For Small Island Developing States this opinion is a powerful tool. It helps anchor 1.5c as a non-negotiable limit rooted in the best available science and now grounded in international law, backs the call to phase out fossil fuel production, expansion and export including looking across the full spectrum of GHGs, strengthens arguments for robust NDCs, clarifies that finance is a legal obligation under both the Paris Agreement and customary international law and not voluntary assistance. Finance must be adequate and accessible, and supports claims for loss and damage, debt relief and tax justice. It recognises that sea level rise does not erase statehood or maritime rights, and that human rights obligations cross borders.
The task now is to move this opinion out of legal circles and into every space where decisions are made.
PICAN will work with Pacific governments, movements and allies to embed this opinion in the road to COP30 in Belém, in the new NDC cycle, in debt and tax justice debates and – with the help of partners and allies – in strategic litigation. The law has caught up with the science. Action must now catch up with both.
Reactions from Pacific Civil Society:
Rufino Varea, Director at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN):
The Court has handed us a legal backbone for climate justice. No more excuses. Those who fuel this crisis must stop the harm and help repair it. The law now reflects the justice our communities have always demanded and we will use this opinion everywhere we fight for our people.
Cynthia Houniuhi, President of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC)
This is a victory forged by Pacific youth but owned by all. We pushed the world’s highest court to listen and it did. Now we move from legal words to living change. Young people will make sure this ruling cannot be shelved or spun.
Dr Sindra Sharma, International Policy Lead at PICAN
This ruling is a guiding star for the level of climate ambition desperately needed within the UNFCCC and beyond. Science has long told us what is needed. Now the law does too. The multilateral process cannot continue drifting. Belém must deliver finance and a fossil fuel phase out that matches this legal reality.
Fenton Lutunatabua, Deputy Head of Regions at 350.org:
The realities of frontline communities have been presented to the world’s highest court and international law is on our side. What this means is that states’ climate obligations are not just in terms of emissions, but in terms of how the climate crisis has impacted our basic human rights and losses.
This journey started in a classroom in Vanuatu and we commend the young Pacific Islanders that have carried the legacy of climate leadership from our islands. A line has been drawn, and high-emitting states now have the obligation to address their climate responsibilities head on.
Richard Gokrun, Managing Director at Tuvalu Climate Action Network (TuCAN)
For Tuvalu, this is a breath of legal oxygen. We’ve known that our survival has always been a question of justice, not a measure of charity extended to us by polluters. The Court has reminded the world of that truth. We will carry this clarity into every negotiation and courtroom until justice is delivered.
Mario Liunamel, Coordinator of Vanuatu Climate Action Network (VCAN)
Vanuatu helped spark this process because our people live the consequences every day. Today the Court has confirmed what we fought for in the UN General Assembly and in every hall since. Big emitters must cut fossil fuels, fund real solutions and repair the harm already done. Every cyclone that tears through our islands is financed by someone else’s emissions. This puts that truth in law and we will use it to push for an urgent end to new fossil fuel projects that keep rebuilding our losses faster than we can recover.
Noelene Nabulivou, DIVA International Adviser
This Advisory Opinion confirms what Pacific feminists already know. There is a safe future possible for this planet, and we are creating it. Through bravery, strategy, and great commitment, Pacific young people led social movements, communities, development institutions, governments, and the International Court of Justice to this moment. Now we will all work together to ensure accountability and justice—this is a new day for climate justice.
Eparama Qerewaqa, Executive Coordinator for the Alliance for Future Generations
A valiant campaign that was led by Pacific youth who carried this fight with courage, conviction and the mana of the lands and oceans we are fighting to protect. Today’s outcome gives legal weight to our struggle and affirms that we matter! Our islands and Oceans deserve to be protected. This is just the start. The world has heard us, now those most responsible must act, and pay their dues.
A clear challenge to Australia
Climate Council
A historic and unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice has confirmed countries’ strong obligations under international law to slash climate pollution, and set out the expected legal consequences for breaching these obligations.
The Climate Council’s preliminary analysis (below) finds the decision has significant implications for Australia.
CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “The decision will reverberate across the world and around Australia – in courtrooms, boardrooms, Parliaments and international negotiations.
“The court makes it crystal clear that all countries have significant legal responsibilities to prevent further climate harm by slashing their climate pollution rapidly and deeply.
“The Court’s ruling makes it clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production – whether used domestically or exported – due to the significant harm it causes and regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned.
“The world’s highest international court has exploded the Federal Government’s argument that Australia is not accountable for our vast fossil fuel exports. Australia has a legal duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system, not just in our domestic pollution but in all our activities.”
The Court characterises failure to cut a nation’s climate pollution as a “wrongful act” that could trigger obligations to make reparations, including compensation, to other countries injured by the climate crisis.
McKenzie said: “With every fraction of a degree of global heating, we can expect more deadly climate disasters. Already this year, Australians have faced destructive flooding in New South Wales and Queensland, drought in South Australia and Victoria, and devastating marine heatwaves across three states. A strong 2035 climate target, with clear plans to meet it, is vital to protecting vulnerable communities from further harm.”
The Climate Council’s report, Stronger Target, Safer Future: Why Australia’s 2035 Climate Target Matters, shows a strong national target can protect Australians from climate harm, open economic opportunities in modern industries like green metals and renewable power, and enhance our regional security.
Preliminary analysis
1. Countries have very strong obligations under international law to cut climate pollution and prevent significant harm to the global climate that sustains human life. The Court refers both to climate treaties and other bodies of international law.
2. Australia is obligated to set strong, science aligned climate targets. The Court makes clear that it “considers the 1.5°C threshold to be the parties’ agreed primary temperature goal for limiting the global average temperature increase under the Paris Agreement.”
It states that countries “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC), which includes the 2035 climate target, must be in line with the Paris Agreement goal to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C. The judgement further emphasises that each country must “do its utmost to ensure that the NDCs it puts forward represent its highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the [Paris] Agreement.”
Yesterday, the Climate Council released the latest scientific data showing that this goal is almost out of reach for Australia due to a decade of delayed action (2013-2022). That research shows net zero by 2035 is the only climate target available to Australia with a strong chance of contributing to holding global warming below 2°C.
However, the Court makes clear that to be aligned with Paris obligations a country’s actions should be consistent with holding warming to 1.5°C. Therefore Australia may be obligated to contribute to global efforts to slash climate pollution as well as take steps at home – for instance building new industries (e.g. green iron) and preventing new fossil fuel projects.
The Federal Government has accelerated climate action in the last three years, including reaching 43 percent renewable power in Australia’s main grid. The action must now be strengthened to meet our international obligations.
The Australian Government is expected to make its decision on Australia’s 2035 climate target in the coming months. The Court’s judgement makes clear that a target should be as strong as possible and accompanied by plans and policies to implement that target.
It can further be argued that, to comply with international law, this judgement requires Australia to both set a strong national target and take action on exported emissions to help hold global heating to 1.5°C.
3. On-going production, consumption and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could constitute wrongful acts under international law. Wrongful acts may trigger obligations to compensate other countries suffering from climate harm.
The Court states that: “What constitutes a wrongful act is not the emissions in and of themselves, but actions or omissions causing significant harm to the climate system in breach of a state’s international obligations.”
The Federal Government has argued that Australia is not responsible for the emissions from Australia’s vast exports of coal and gas. The Court disagrees. Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels, therefore there is a strong case that ongoing support and expansion of Australia’s export industry constitutes “significant harm to the climate system”.
The Court finds that individual countries can still be found responsible, even if it is hard to identify a specific share of harm they have caused. The Court notes that it is “scientifically possible to determine each State’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.”
Given Australia has consistently been one of the highest per capita polluters in the world and one of the world’s most prolific fossil fuel exporters, it can also be argued that Australia’s relative share of harm is significant. This will also likely be argued in respect to other countries that are major polluters and fossil fuel exporters.
The Court finds that wrongful acts – which could include breaching treaty obligations or failing to regulate climate pollution – under international law could trigger repatriation obligations, including obligations to compensate other countries harmed by climate disasters.
The Court also finds an obligation for countries to limit climate pollution from private actors in its jurisdiction. This appears to be a broad definition that would apply to fossil fuels production for international or domestic use.
The Court’s findings give the Australian Government reason to consider the totality of Australia’s contribution to climate harm, including our exported climate pollution.
In particular, the Court’s decision is pertinent to the Federal Government’s review of Australia’s national environment laws. Currently, when the Federal Environment Minister considers whether to approve new fossil fuel projects there is no provision in the act to consider the climate pollution from that project.
Given the Court’s very strong judgement, it will be difficult for the Australian Government to argue that it has the “highest possible ambition in order to realise the objectives of the [Paris] Agreement”, if it does not reform the environment laws and/or take other substantive measures to prevent the expansion of Australia’s fossil fuel industry.
Bolsters fight for climate justice and accountability
Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International
Today’s opinion is a landmark moment for climate justice and accountability. The ICJ made clear that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.
The world’s highest court stressed that states have a duty to act now, regulate the activities of private actors and cooperate to protect current and future generations and ecosystems from the worsening impacts of human induced climate change. This unprecedented opinion will bolster the hundreds of ongoing and upcoming climate litigation cases around the world, where people seek justice for the livelihoods that have been snatched away and the damage caused by major polluters.
Candy Ofime, Researcher and Legal Advisor in the Climate Justice Team
In light of the polluters pay principle, the ICJ established that states’ failure to take action to protect the climate system – including through continued fossil fuel production, licencing or the provision of subsidies to fossil fuel companies—may constitute an internationally wrongful act. Despite big polluters’ suggestion to the contrary, the ICJ recognized that it is scientifically possible to determine each state’s contribution to the climate crisis, taking into account current and cumulative emissions. States, particularly historically high greenhouse gas emitters, must take responsibility and repair the climate harms they have caused and provide guarantees of non-repetition.
Following in the footsteps of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the ICJ reaffirmed that climate change can lead to the forced displacement of people seeking safety, including across borders, emphasizing that in such circumstances, non-refoulement protections applies.
The ICJ recognized that climate change constitutes “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet”. It stressed that a complete solution to this “life-daunting” and “self-inflicted” crisis does not only require contribution of all fields of knowledge but also “human will, at individual, social and political levels to change our current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.”
Delivering a message to the climate justice movement worldwide, the ICJ expressed “hope that its conclusions would inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis.”
Amnesty International expresses the utmost gratitude to the Pacific Islands students whose innovative and inspiring global advocacy was critical in making today a reality.
Powerful tool for holding countries to account
Oxfam International
The International Court of Justice has ruled that governments must phase out fossil fuels, rapidly reduce emissions, provide remedy to those facing climate damages and provide climate finance to developing countries.
Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi
Oxfam is proud to have supported young climate defenders from the Pacific and elsewhere who bravely took their fight for justice from a classroom in Vanuatu to the world’s highest court. They won the world a tremendous victory today.
This ruling elevates national climate commitments everywhere by confirming that countries must reduce emissions enough to protect the universal rights to life, food, health and a clean environment.
All countries, particularly rich ones, now have to cut their emissions faster and phase out fossil fuels. Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm. This is not a wish-list – it is international law.
We now have a powerful tool for holding countries to account for their obligations, especially in protecting the world’s most marginalized people and future generations of humanity.
The ICJ rejected arguments by the likes of the US and UK that governments are bound only by climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement and did not have stronger obligations under international law. This ruling will inject new impetus into negotiations at the COP30 Summit in Brazil this November.
Oxfam has been supporting the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change’s lawsuit since 2022, joining in advocacy for the UN General Assembly to refer the case to the Court. Oxfam provided a written statement to the ICJ in March 2024 on human rights obligations beyond borders and what this means for climate action. Oxfam also contributed to an expert legal opinion that was referenced in several State submissions, the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations. 
More from social media
Background
In 2023, the General Assembly of the United Nations asked the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:
1. What are the obligations of states under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?
2. What are the legal consequences for states when they cause significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment with respect to other states, in particular small island states that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and people in the present and future generations affected by climate change?
The ICJ found that States, like Australia, have binding obligations under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system. The Court rejected the key argument used by high-emitting States – including Australia – that attempted to limit their obligations to those set out in the climate agreements and found that all States owe binding obligations to reduce emissions not just under climate-specific treaties (the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement), but also international human rights law and other human rights treaties.
The Court noted that those obligations include:
An obligation to take mitigation and adaptation measures which reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the 1.5 degree target set out in the Paris Agreement. In its Advisory Opinion, the Court found that 1.5C is the legally binding temperature target under the Paris Agreement and international law. This is the clearest legal affirmation to date that cooperation among states to address climate change and meet this challenge is not optional – it is a binding obligation;
A duty on all States to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and using all means at their disposal to prevent activities, like the emission of greenhouse gases from causing significant harm to the climate.
The legal consequences of failing to protect the climate system, may include full reparation to injured states. The Court emphasised that harm caused by multiple sources contributing to climate harms does not absolve states of responsibility.
A duty to exercise due diligence in ensuring their climate targets (NDC) are capable of meeting the 1.5 degree temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. Countries’ climate plans not discretionary and rich countries on notice of higher standard: The Court clarified that the content of a countries NDC is not completely discretionary. The standard to be applied when assessing the NDC will depend on the country’s historical contribution to emissions and level of development. This means rich countries will be held to higher standards for their NDCs.
Further, the Court stated that States must exercise ‘regulatory due diligence’ to regulate the activities of private actors contributing to climate change. States must take take necessary regulatory or legislative measures to limit the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities of companies that are under the State’s control.
The case was the brainchild of a group of young law students from the low-lying Pacific islands of Vanuatu. Supported by the government of Vanuatu, the students decided to ask the world’s highest court to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis.
Many poorer and so-called developing countries had backed the case, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem.
But richer countries, including Australia, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark Paris Agreement, were sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on the climate emergency
