In landmark opinion, UN court says climate change an ‘existential threat’
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
UN court rules countries must treat climate change as an ‘existential’ threat’
The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion is not legally binding but was unanimous. The decision is expected to have major legal ramifications for courts, companies and communities across the world. The global climate should be protected for both the current population but also for future generations, the court ruled. The push for a court opinion was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations. The court ruled that states have a legal obligation to tackle climate change and that failing to do so was a “wrongful act” That could open the door to reparations, according to the court’s president Yuji Iwasawa. The ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action. The opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for small island nations and activists that have won legal wins for the right to protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of the climate change, and that the Dutch government has a duty to protect its citizens.
The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion is not legally binding but was unanimous and is expected to have major legal ramifications for courts, companies and communities across the world.
The United Nations had tasked the ICJ to outline what obligations countries were under to curb planet-heating emissions – and to lay out possible consequences for failing to do so.
The global climate should be protected for both the current population but also for future generations, the court ruled, describing the climate system as “an integral and vitally important part of the environment and which must be protected for present and future generations.”
In his opening remarks, ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the consequences of climate change “are severe and far-reaching: they affect both natural ecosystems and human populations.
“These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.”
He added that the adverse effects of climate change may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life.
“Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited,” he said.
As a result, the court ruled that states have a legal obligation to tackle climate change and that failing to do so was a “wrongful act” that could open the door to reparations.
Protesters in The Hague, Netherlands, as the ICJ delivers a historic climate ruling, on 23 July 2025. © Lina Selg / ANP/AFP
Push from Vanuatu
The push for a court opinion was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations.
‘Survival’ at stake as Vanuatu uses ocean summit to press ICJ climate case
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s climate change minister, said the ICJ ruling could be a “game-changer” in the fight against global warming.
“We’ve been going through this for 30 years… It’ll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have,” Regenvanu told French news agency AFP.
The United Nations tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ to answer two fundamental questions:
First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions “for present and future generations”?
what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions “for present and future generations”? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states?
While critics argue that major polluters are likely to disregard them, others highlight the court’s significant moral and legal authority.
They express hope that its opinion will influence national climate policies and strengthen ongoing legal efforts to address climate change.
Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme’s law division, said the ICJ should “clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis.”
Chairperson of the African Union Commission on International Law, Hajer Gueldich and Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu pose for photograph ahead of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) session tasked with issuing the first Advisory Opinion (AO) on States’ legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands, on 23 July 2025. AFP – JOHN THYS
Legal and political weight
Analysts say Wednesday’s ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action.
Outside the court in the Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans like “No more delay, climate justice today”.
In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
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.
(With newswires)
Brazil to join South Africa’s ICJ ‘genocide’ case against Israel
Brazil has said that it will move to intervene in a case before the International Court of Justice. The case alleges that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza, as non-Western countries step up calls for greater pressure. Brazil has become increasingly vocal in its criticism of Israel, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva denouncing Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide at a BRICS meeting earlier this month. Several other countries, including Spain, Turkiye, and the Republic of Ireland, have also asked to intervene. The court has yet to rule on whether Israel is commit genocide in Gaza. However, pressure has had little impact, and other Western allies have remained firmly supportive of Israel.
The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Wednesday that it was in the “final stages” of submitting a formal intervention to the ICJ regarding the case, originally brought by South Africa.
“The international community cannot remain inactive in the face of ongoing atrocities,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “Brazil believes there is no longer room for moral ambiguity or political omission. Impunity undermines international legality and undermines the credibility of the multilateral system.”
Brazil’s planned intervention in the case, earlier reported by the Brazilian paper Folha de S Paulo, comes as Israeli abuses in Gaza, including harsh restrictions on aid that have brought the Gaza Strip to the brink of mass famine, are under growing scrutiny.
The “Brazilian government announces that it is in the final stages of submitting a formal intervention in the ongoing case at the International Court of Justice, brought by South Africa under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” the statement said.
“The Brazilian government expresses deep indignation at the recurring episodes of violence against the civilian population in the State of Palestine, not limited to the Gaza Strip but extending to the West Bank.”
Advertisement
Increasingly vocal
The South American nation said that civilians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank have been subjected to “recurring episodes of violence” and serious rights violations, including the “shameless use of starvation as a weapon of war”.
Several other countries, including Spain, Turkiye, and the Republic of Ireland, have also asked to intervene in the case, urging the ICJ to state that Israel is in violation of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Brazil has itself become increasingly vocal in its criticism of Israel, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva denouncing Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide at a BRICS meeting earlier this month. The Foreign Ministry statement notes that the decision to intervene in the case is based on the “plausibility that the rights of Palestinians to protection against acts of genocide are being irreversibly impaired”.
The court has yet to rule on whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but issued an order in January 2024, demanding that Israel take action to prevent genocide in the Strip through acts such as allowing greater access to humanitarian aid.
However, pressure has had little impact, and the United States and other Western allies have remained firmly supportive of Israel despite a growing chorus of experts and rights groups warning of systematic rights abuses in Gaza.
Israel initiated a full blockade in March that barred all aid from Gaza for several months, before allowing a limited resumption of assistance through the GHF, a group closely tied to Israel and the US.
More than 1,000 Palestinians waiting for aid at GHF distribution sites have been killed by Israeli forces since May, as reports of Palestinians dying of starvation continue to mount.
United Nations officials have denounced the sites as “death traps” and said they will not cooperate with GHF, which supplanted existing international aid groups that Israel has largely barred from operating in Gaza.
World Court Declares Climate Change an ‘Existential Threat’ in Landmark Legal Opinion Backed by 130 Nations
World Court Declares Climate Change an ‘Existential Threat’ in Landmark Legal Opinion Backed by 130 Nations. While the opinion is non-binding, legal experts say it will carry considerable political and legal weight as governments face mounting pressure to meet climate obligations. The ruling was prompted by a 2023 request from the U.N. General Assembly, driven by years of lobbying from vulnerable Pacific island nations like Vanuatu. “The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” said Arnold Kiel Loughman, Attorney General of vanuatu, during the December 2023 hearings. “It’s not just about future targets – it also tackles historical responsibility,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ top legal body, delivered a historic advisory opinion on Wednesday declaring climate change an “urgent and existential threat,” marking a watershed moment in the evolution of international environmental law. While the opinion is non-binding, legal experts say it will carry considerable political and legal weight as governments face mounting pressure to meet climate obligations.
“Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited,” said Judge Yuji Iwasawa during the reading at the court’s Great Hall of Justice in The Hague.
The ruling was prompted by a 2023 request from the U.N. General Assembly, driven by years of lobbying from vulnerable Pacific island nations like Vanuatu. The assembly asked the court to clarify two fundamental questions: what legal duties nations have under international law to combat climate change, and what consequences they face for failure to act.
“The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” said Arnold Kiel Loughman, Attorney General of Vanuatu, during the December 2023 hearings. More than 130 countries supported the case.
Although the ruling cannot compel countries to cut emissions, it may serve as a legal cornerstone for future lawsuits and climate-related litigation. “The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law,” said Vishal Prasad, one of the law students who lobbied Vanuatu’s government to bring the case forward.
Protesters and climate activists gathered outside the court, holding signs reading: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.” Inside, the courtroom was packed with observers from across the globe.
Legal experts note the opinion can influence future legal instruments, including investment treaties, and empower activists to file domestic lawsuits. “What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “It’s not just about future targets – it also tackles historical responsibility.”
The opinion follows a surge in international legal action related to climate change. According to the Grantham Research Institute, nearly 3,000 cases have been filed in almost 60 countries as of June. While outcomes have been mixed, courts have increasingly affirmed climate-related duties. In 2019, the Netherlands’ Supreme Court ruled the government has a legal obligation to protect citizens from climate harm. Earlier this year, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights issued rulings reinforcing states’ legal responsibilities in addressing environmental risks.
Yet global emissions continue to rise. The U.N.’s latest Emissions Gap Report warned that existing national policies put the planet on track for over 3°C of warming by 2100, far above the 1.5°C target outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. That accord, signed by over 190 nations, remains largely non-binding.
Loading…
“We cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,” Chowdhury said. “This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to.”
Climate inaction could break international law, says UN court
Quantum Commodity Intelligence is a premium paid subscription service for professionals in the oil, biofuels, carbon, ammonia and hydrogen markets.
Please Register or Sign in to view this content.
Quantum Commodity Intelligence is a premium paid subscription service for professionals in the oil, biofuels, carbon, ammonia and hydrogen markets.
Quantum Carbon service subscribers have access to:
Daily price assessments
Market news and price commentary
Fundamental trade data
Quantum Carbon Daily – market report sent to your email
Get in touch with us for subscription information on all Quantum platforms, or help with the service.
Top UN court says treaties compel wealthy nations to curb global warming
The International Court of Justice said countries must address the ‘urgent and existential threat’ of climate change. The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control. Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in ‘full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction’ The opinion was hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable. The decision was stronger than most expected, but its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world’s biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations. ‘This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference,’ said Judge Yuji Iwasawa, who presided over the two-hour reading of the opinion. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies.
Reuters
The United Nations’ highest court on Wednesday told wealthy countries they must comply with their international commitments to curb pollution or risk having to pay compensation to nations hard hit by climate change.
In an opinion hailed by small island states and environmental groups as a legal stepping stone to make big polluters accountable, the International Court of Justice said countries must address the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change.
The United Nations’ highest court on Wednesday underlined “the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change” as it started to read out a landmark opinion on the legal obligations of states to take action. PICTURE: Screenshot via Reuters
“States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” Judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failure by countries to comply with the “stringent obligations” placed on them by climate treaties was a breach of international law.
The court said countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control.
Failure to rein in fossil fuel production and subsidies could result in “full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction provided that the general conditions of the law of state responsibility are met.”
“I didn’t expect it to be this good,” Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told reporters after the unanimous opinion by the ICJ, also known as the World Court, was read out.
Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ, said: “This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice. And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice.”
We rely on our readers to fund Sight’s work – become a financial supporter today!
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hailed the opinion and said it affirms that the Paris climate agreement goal needs to be the basis of all climate policies.
“This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference,” he said. “The world must respond.”
Human right to clean environment
Judge Iwasawa, who presided the panel of 15 judges, 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.
Under international law, he said: “The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.”
While the decision was stronger than most expected, its impact may be limited by the fact that the United States, the world’s biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter, and second biggest current emitter behind China, has moved under President Donald Trump to undo all climate regulations.
“As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Reuters in response to the opinion.
The Dragon Bravo Fire burns on the northern rim as seen from Grandeur Point on the southern rim of Grand Canyon, Arizona, US, on 14th July, 2025. PICTURE: Reuters/David Swanson/File photo
With scepticism over climate change spreading in the US and elsewhere, Judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response in his two-hour reading of the court’s opinion.
“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 court’s opinion 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.
Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued.
“These reparations involve restitution – such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems – and also monetary compensation,” 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?
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels 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.
The UN says that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than three degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
– Additional reporting by BART MEIJER, VALERIE VOLCOVICI, and ZORAN MIKLETIC