United Nations’s top court has said that inaction on climate change could be unlawful. The

(ICJ) said on Wednesday that countries may be breaching international law if they fail to take meaningful steps to protect the climate.

Tired of too many ads? go ad free now

It also opened the door for reparations to countries already affected by the crisis.

Court president Yuji Iwasawa called the climate emergency “an existential problem of planetary proportions” and warned that ignoring it could amount to a “wrongful act” under international law. Activists celebrated outside the court.

Full Briefing: Speaker Mike Johnson ‘Blesses’ Rep. Massie; Shuts Door On Epstein Files House Vote

The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries. After years of pressure from vulnerable island states, the UN general assembly had asked the ICJ in 2023 to give its opinion. A panel of 15 judges answered two key questions: what are states legally required to do to protect the environment, and what happens if they don’t?

The court’s opinion, over 500 pages long, said that every person has a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

It’s a human right. The statement alone could be used in domestic and international courts. Experts say this could shape future lawsuits, investment treaties, and even climate policies.

Vanuatu’s attorney general reminded judges that his people’s survival was at stake. Sea levels in parts of the Pacific were rising faster than the global average. Global temperatures have already increased by 1.3°C since pre-industrial times.

Some countries, like the US and Russia, have opposed any court-mandated emission cuts. But ICJ’s opinion adds to growing legal pressure.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American court of

ruled that countries must avoid environmental harm and restore damaged ecosystems. Last year, the European court of human rights made a similar call.

In 2019, the Dutch supreme court became the first to link climate change and human rights, ruling the government must protect citizens from its effects.

Though the ICJ ruling is not legally binding, it marks a significant shift in climate law. The court itself admitted that law alone cannot solve the crisis, but said it plays an “important” role in shaping global responsibility.

Judges with the United Nations’s top court say in a landmark climate decision that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right.

The International Court of Justice is delivering an advisory opinion Wednesday about nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and consequences they may face if they don’t.

The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account, as well as domestic lawsuits.

Story continues below this ad

“The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights,” court President Yuji Iwasawa said.

The decision could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits, and legal instruments like investment agreements.

Story continues below this ad

The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries.

All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court.

Outside the court, climate activists gathered. They held a banner that read: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.” The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed.

Story continues below this ad

After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations.

A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? “The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December.

In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.

Story continues below this ad

Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific.

“The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, told The Associated Press.

Any decision by The Hague-based court would be unable to directly force wealthy nations into action to help struggling countries. Yet it would be more than just a powerful symbol, since it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits.

Story continues below this ad

“What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It’s not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,” Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told AP.

Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision and states could return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account. And whatever the judges say will be used as the basis for other legal instruments, like investment agreements, Chowdhury said.

The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions.

Story continues below this ad

Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.

In 2019, the Netherlands’ Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Judges with the United Nations’s top court say in a landmark climate decision that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right.

The International Court of Justice is delivering an advisory opinion Wednesday about nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and consequences they may face if they don’t.

The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account, as well as domestic lawsuits.

By Stephanie van den Berg and Alison Withers, Reuters

Photo: JOHN THYS / AFP

The United Nations’ highest court said countries must address the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation.

The International Court of Justice said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate.

The opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states’ responsibilities.

Judge Yuji Iwasawa said countries were obliged to comply with the “stringent obligations” placed on them by climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law.

“States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” Iwasawa said, as he read out the court’s advisory opinion.

He said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).

Under international law, he said: “The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.”

Earlier, as he started a just over two-hour reading of the court’s opinion, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response.

“Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited,” he said.

Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem.

Political and legal weight

The deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague is non-binding, but it carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say.

“This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level,” said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace.

Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney, at the Center For International Environmental Law laid out the possibility of big emitters being sued.

“If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,” he said.

Two questions

Wednesday’s opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the UN General Assembly to consider two questions: what are countries’ obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system?

Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.

Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid.

They had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Late last year, in the “Emissions Gap Report,” which takes stock of countries’ promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3°C (5.4°F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate-related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

– Reuters

PICKS are stories from many sources, selected by our editors or recommended by our readers because they are important, surprising, troubling, enlightening, inspiring, or amusing. They appear on our site and in our daily newsletter. Please send suggested articles, videos, podcasts, etc. to picks@whowhatwhy.org.

Listen To This Story

Healthy Environment a Human Right, UN Court Says in Landmark Climate Ruling (Maria)

The author writes, “A ‘clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ is a human right, according to judges at the top court of the United Nations. The international court of justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark advisory opinion on Wednesday about countries’ obligations to tackle climate change, and the consequences they may face if they do not. The nonbinding opinion runs to more than 500 pages and is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law.”

Gaza Is Starving (Dana)

The author writes, “‘Without immediate intervention, the last reporters in Gaza will die.’ This is the title of a statement published by the Editorial Committee of the Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Monday. The association is composed of employees at the AFP, the world’s oldest news agency: Based in Paris, they’ve reported for nearly 200 years, including from present-day Gaza. And now employees are sounding the alarm on near-death conditions for both the people they cover, and the people who tell their stories. Since the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation took over as the chief provider of food in Gaza on May 27th, more than 1,000 people desperately seeking nourishment have been killed by the Israeli Military, according to the United Nations. As a cancer nurse in Gaza messaged a BBC reporter on Tuesday, ‘Hunger is killing us faster than illness ever could.’ The situation has been an intolerable humanitarian disaster since day one, and it would be unfair to say it’s gotten worse. But as the entire population is crowded into a small corner of the region and the man-made famine takes hold, it’s become impossible to ignore.”

Jewish Woman’s Challenge of Kentucky’s Abortion Ban Gets Green Light From Appeals Court (Reader Steve)

From News From the States: “A Court of Appeals panel has ruled that one of three Jewish women suing the state has standing — the right — to challenge Kentucky’s abortion ban. Chief Judge Larry E. Thompson and judges Susanne M. Cetrulo and Jeff S. Taylor all agreed on Friday: two of the three women — Lisa Sobel and Sarah Baron — don’t have standing, while the third, Jessica Kalb, does. This is because Kalb has nine frozen embryos right now that she’s paying to preserve as part of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process and doesn’t know how she can proceed with the process under the state’s restrictions on abortion and definition of life. Kalb also canceled having an embryo implanted in 2022 ‘due to her uncertainty surrounding Kentucky’s abortion laws,’ according to the ruling.”

By Refusing to Show Faces or Badges, ICE Opens Door to Vigilante Impersonators (Reader Jim)

From Truthout: “For weeks, unidentifiable men and women wearing neck gaiters, mismatched camouflage attire, gloves, and baseball caps have stood outside hearing rooms at the federal immigration courthouse in Lower Manhattan. They block stairwells and elevators, waiting for immigrants to leave mandatory court appointments, before handcuffing them and taking them to processing centers. Family members may wait days before finding out where their loved ones are being held — or if they’re even still in the country. As US immigration officials seek to arrest more than a million people this year, an army of plainclothes law enforcement agents has dispersed across the country. They arrive in unmarked vehicles while only their eyes peek out from a balaclava. Their bulletproof vests may identify them as ‘police’ or a ‘federal agent’ but often offer no hint as to their agency or division.”

Violating California Residents’ Right to Water (Laura)

The author writes, “People in the nation’s richest strawberry-growing region have lacked safe drinking water for decades. A Biden administration grant promised them a clean, climate-resilient drinking water system. Trump took it away.”

Mark Zuckerberg Is Expanding His Secretive Hawaii Compound. Part of It Sits Atop a Burial Ground (Sean)

From WIRED: “As a child, Julian Ako would visit his maternal great-grandfather’s home near Pilaa Beach in Kauai, Hawaii, where he and his family would gather edible fungi that grow on kukui trees and collect seaweed and fish from the reef. For about a decade, that land has belonged to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is constructing a massive compound at an estimated cost that exceeds $300 million. WIRED can now reveal that Zuckerberg’s property is atop a burial site: Ako’s great-grandmother and her brother were buried on the land. After months of discussions with a Zuckerberg representative, Ako was successfully able to gain access to the property and identify and register the graves with the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, though he was not able to locate remains of other ancestors, who he believes could be buried on the property.”

1,000-Year-Old Health Hacks Are Trending — and Backed by Science (Mili)

The author writes, “Medieval medicine is undergoing a reputation makeover. New research reveals that far from being stuck in superstition, early Europeans actively explored healing practices based on nature, observation, and practical experience — some of which uncannily echo today’s wellness trends on TikTok.”