The world’s highest court says countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change, in a ruling that repudiates Australia’s claims it is not legally responsible for emissions from our fossil fuel exports.

The landmark ruling overnight by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will reverberate in courts, parliaments and boardrooms the world over.

In a closely watched case at The Hague, the judges were asked to clarify the legal obligations countries have to protect the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations. They were also asked to clarify the legal consequences for nations that fail to do this.

At issue was the scope of legal obligations. During the court’s deliberations, Australia sided with other fossil fuel exporters and major emitters – including Saudi Arabia, the United States and China – to argue state obligations on climate change are restricted to those set out in climate-specific treaties such as the Paris Agreement.

But the court disagreed. It found countries have additional obligations to protect the climate and take action to prevent climate harm inside and outside their boundaries. These obligations arise in human rights law, the law of the sea, and general principles of international law.

This clear statement will have groundbreaking consequences. It means Australia must set a 2035 emissions reduction target in line with the best available science, as required under the Paris Agreement. But it must also go further, by regulating the fossil fuel industry to prevent further harm.

Australia’s arguments rejected

The ICJ is the primary legal organ of the United Nations. Its key role is to settle disputes between countries and clarify international law as it applies to nation states.

While weighing up the obligations of countries to address the climate crisis, the court heard legal arguments from almost 100 countries, making it the largest case ever heard by the ICJ.

The case threatened major implications for fossil-fuel producers such as Australia, which is heavily reliant on coal and gas exports.

In his oral presentation to the ICJ, Australian Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the court only the Paris Agreement should apply when it comes to mitigating climate change. Under the Paris rules, countries must set targets to cut domestic emissions, but they are not required to report emissions created when their fossil fuel exports are burned overseas.

Donaghue and the Australian delegation also suggested responsibility for harms caused by climate change could not be pinned on individual states. Australia also argued protecting human rights does not extend to obligations to tackle climate change.

The ICJ largely rejected these arguments.

JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images

Fossil fuel era is over

The court found Australia, and other fossil fuel producers, are obliged under international law to prevent fossil fuel companies in their territory from causing significant climate harm.

This will essentially require a managed phase out of fossil fuel production. As the ICJ ruling says:

Failure of a State 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 licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.

Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and gas. When burned overseas, emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports are more than double those of its entire domestic economy.

Australia has approved hundreds of oil, gas and coal projects in recent decades. Dozens more are in the approvals pipeline. Final federal approval is still pending for Woodside’s massive Northwest Shelf gas project – which is set to add millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, for decades.

The Australian government must heed the message from the Hague. The days of impunity for the fossil fuel industry are coming to an end.

GREG WOOD/AFP via Getty Images

A spark of hope from the Pacific

Today’s ruling is remarkable for where it originated.

In 2019, 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu were given a challenge: find the most ambitious legal pathways towards climate justice.

Each year, Vanuatu faces the prospect of cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, flooding rain and drought. Climate change compounds the risk to island communities – people who have done the least to contribute to the problem.

The students decided to file a case with the world court. And so began a legal campaign that travelled from Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, through the halls of the United Nations in New York and to the world court in the Hague.

In 2023 Vanuatu and other island nations succeeded in passing a UN General Assembly resolution. It asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on countries’ obligations to protect the climate system and legal consequences for states causing “significant harm” to Earth’s climate.

This week’s ruling delivers poetic justice to Vanuatu and other vulnerable island states.

Michel Porro/Getty Images

A new era for climate justice

The court’s findings are likely to influence a wave of climate litigation worldwide. It could shape legal reasoning in Australia, too.

Last week, a Federal Court judge found the Australian government has no legal duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change. If that case is appealed, a superior court may revisit the government’s obligations – and have regard to the ICJ ruling in doing so.

The ICJ decision will also be relevant for the Queensland Land Court, which this week began hearing a challenge to stop a greenfield mine proposed by Whitehaven Coal – citing environmental and human rights impacts of the project’s emissions.

Clarified international law obligations should also guide policymakers in the Australian parliament. With a huge majority in the House of Representatives and a climate-friendly Senate crossbench, the Albanese government has a mandate to implement policy in line with Australia’s international law obligations.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Gillian Moon is a regular donor to the Australian Conservation Foundation, which is a party in the Whitehaven Coal case.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The United Nations’ highest court on Wednesday ruled that wealthy countries must comply with their commitments to curb fossil fuels and pollution or risk being held financially liable by nations hit the hardest by climate change.

The 15-member U.N. International Court of Justice said that treaties compel rich nations to curb global warming and that the countries were also responsible for the actions of companies under their jurisdiction or control, Reuters reported.

“States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,” Judge Yuji Iwasawa said at The Hague. “Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited.”

Trump Celebrates Supreme Court Limits On ‘Colossal Abuse Of Power’ By Federal Judges

Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of Wednesday’s opinion that will likely determine the course of future climate change at The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025.

Failure to do so 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,” the report states.

In response to the ruling, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital that “as always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans.”

Read On The Fox News App

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the court opinion affirms that Paris climate agreement goals need to be the basis of all climate policies.

Scotus Rules On Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order, Testing Lower Court Powers

Tuvalu delegation arrives for the United Nations’ top court International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s public hearings in an advisory opinion case, that may become a reference point in defining countries’ legal obligations to fight climate change, in The Hague, Netherlands, December 2 2024.

“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.”

Wednesday’s ruling was hailed by a number of small nation states.

“I didn’t expect it to be this good,” said Ralph Regenvanu, the climate minister for the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu.

Many developing nations and small island states have said they are at great risk from rising sea levels. Some have sought clarification from the court after the 2015 Paris Agreement failure to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Original article source: UN court rules wealthy nations pay up for climate change damages in controversial global ruling

The United Nations’ top court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, marking the first time its 15 judges have formally addressed what the court’s president called “an existential threat of global proportions that puts all life and the planet’s health at risk.”

In a unanimous and non-binding opinion extending over 500 pages, the International Court of Justice outlined its stance, drawing immediate praise from climate activists who hailed it as a major milestone in the development of international climate law.

After years of lobbying by island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the court in 2023 to answer two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment?

Here are some of the key points from the opinion delivered: ‘Nations must tackle fossil fuel’ The ICJ made clear remarks that states are accountable for various activities that damage the climate, and it explicitly noted that “states must tackle fossil fuel.”

The court emphasised that governments must address fossil fuel use. Specifically, it warned that a country’s failure to act against greenhouse gas emissions, including allowing fossil fuel production and consumption, according to a report by The Guardian.

“A healthy planet is a basic human right” In a straightforward statement that could have profound legal implications, the court stated that everyone is entitled to a habitable planet.

Also Read: Climate change is now a real and pressing economic threat

“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 during a two-hour hearing. A livable planet is a human right and is part of international customary law, meaning every country is obliged to protect it, not just countries that have signed climate treaties and other agreements, as reported by Associated Press.

Violating international law A failure to address climate change, the court said, could be a violation of international law. That matters because it applies to all countries and paves the way for legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other accountable; domestic lawsuits; and investment agreements that must conform to international law.

“With today’s authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: Those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and full reparation,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.

Climate damage linked to greenhouse gas emissions The court ruled that some countries or individuals suffering from the effects of climate change could be eligible for compensation.

For climate damage linked to greenhouse gas emissions, “restitution may take the form of reconstructing damaged or destroyed infrastructure, and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity,” the court said.

If that’s not possible, financial compensation could be assessed, though the judges conceded it “may be difficult to calculate, as there is usually a degree of uncertainty concerning the exact extent of the damage caused.”

The judges acknowledged that climate change may force people to flee their homes, and emphasised that nations have a responsibility not to reject climate refugees whose lives are at risk. They also stated that if a country is submerged due to rising sea levels, it still retains its legal existence.

A healthy planet is a basic human right.

Those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and full reparation.

For the Pacific Island nations that sought this ruling, the danger is urgent. Since 1993, sea levels around Vanuatu have been rising at approximately 6 millimetres (0.24 inches) per year, well above the global average, with some areas experiencing even greater increases due to tectonic activity.

Statement from the UN’s highest court is a turning point in the climate fight. It could become a global shift in moral authority.

In a historic ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change – and it is nothing short of a game-changer. For the first time, the world’s highest court has clearly defined that climate inaction is not just irresponsible – it may be unlawful.

It took two hours to read aloud the Court’s legal opinion. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, President of the ICJ in The Hague on 23 July 2025, delivered a meticulous and comprehensive statement, reviewing decades of climate treaties, legal conventions and binding principles of international law.

The conclusion was crystal clear:

All states are, beyond any legal doubt, obliged to protect the climate from harmful human-caused changes. This duty exists not only under climate treaties like the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, but also under customary international law, international human rights law and the law of the sea.

The implications for Australia are profound – and immediate.

Legal obligations beyond treaties

The ICJ found that even if a country withdraws from climate treaties, its responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions does not disappear. Under international law, states remain bound by longstanding legal principles that prohibit causing transboundary harm and require good-faith cooperation.

This overturns the old framing of climate action as voluntary or aspirational. Under this new legal interpretation, Australia remains liable, regardless of its domestic policies or treaty commitments.

1.5°C is now the legal threshold

One of the most powerful outcomes of the opinion is the Court’s confirmation that the 1.5°C global warming limit is a legally binding target under international law.

This means that Australia must align all new projects and national plans – including coal mines, gas fields, fracking developments and energy infrastructure – with a pathway that stays within the 1.5°C boundary. Projects like Scarborough and Beetaloo, and policies that support continued fossil fuel expansion, are now under serious legal scrutiny.

Reparations for climate harm

Australia may also face liability for damage caused to other nations, particularly vulnerable Pacific island states. This could involve reparations such as:

• Restoring damaged ecosystems

• Rebuilding destroyed infrastructure

• Providing financial compensation or formal acknowledgement of harm

These forms of restitution, compensation and satisfaction are recognised mechanisms under international law, and they may now apply to climate impacts.

Fossil fuels in the spotlight

For the first time, the Court has stated that failure to address fossil fuel production, consumption, and subsidies may constitute violations of international law. This casts a legal spotlight on Australia’s more than $11 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies, as well as ongoing approval of coal and gas projects.

Governments and companies engaged in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure could now face legal challenges for breaching their international obligations.

Sovereignty of Pacific nations affirmed

The ICJ also ruled that island nations permanently inundated by sea level rise will retain their statehood and maritime boundaries, even if their populations must relocate. This is a monumental win for countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati, and a clear message that climate-related loss of territory does not erase national sovereignty.

For Australia, this reinforces a moral and legal responsibility to act in solidarity with our neighbours – not to contribute to the very crisis that threatens their existence.

Climate displacement is a legal matter

The Court affirmed that people displaced by climate impacts are protected under the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to life-threatening conditions. This principle, usually applied in refugee law, now extends to those displaced by the climate crisis.

Australia must therefore consider new obligations, including:

• Accepting Pacific climate refugees

• Avoiding deportation to climate-ravaged regions

• Rethinking immigration and border policy in the climate era

Legal challenges will follow

The ICJ’s ruling will almost certainly encourage further legal actions, including lawsuits by Pacific states, First Nations peoples, young Australians and environmental defenders. Cases like Sharma v Minister for the Environment, previously dismissed or narrowly interpreted, may now be revisited with renewed force.

The precedent is now set: governments and corporations that fail to meet international climate obligations can be held accountable in court.

A global shift in moral authority

Beyond the legal ramifications, the Court’s opinion sends a powerful moral message. Climate justice is not just a political cause. It is now rooted in international law.

Inaction or continued fossil fuel expansion is not merely poor governance. It could now be grounds for legal action.

As Barrister Harj Narulla – who represented Solomon Islands at the ICJ – observed:

“For the ICJ, this decision is truly radical.”

The Court rejected the argument that only climate treaties matter. It confirmed that major emitters such as the US, China, India – and yes, Australia – have clear obligations under law. All members of the United Nations are party to the ICJ.

Fossil fuel industries have been formally put on notice. Inundated island nations retain their rights. Displaced people gain legal protection.

This is a seismic shift in global climate governance. The ICJ has laid the groundwork for a new era of accountability – and Australia, like every other nation, must now answer to it.

Full ICJ opinion available here:

www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf

QUOTE

“For future generations, this opinion is a lifeline.”

~ Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change

MEDIA COVERAGE

→ The Guardian Australia – 24 July 2025:

The ICJ’s ruling means Australia and other major polluters face a new era of climate reparations

“Countries are now bound under international law to reduce emissions or pay damages to affected nations – a clear statement that the status quo is not sufficient.”

→ AAP – 24 July 2025:

Australia may be target of legal action on climate

“Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts.”

Also on Yahoo News

→ 9News – 24 July 2025:

What ‘historic’ UN court climate ruling means for Australia and the world

“A “historic” court ruling could pave the way for reparations for nations harmed by climate change and force major fossil fuel exporters such as Australia to look hard at taking greater action.”

→ ABC News – 24 July 2024:

International Court of Justice says countries failing to tackle climate change risk breaking international law

“Countries that do not act to prevent climate change could be breaching international law, the United Nations’s top court has declared. The International Court of Justice has also advised that other states impacted by climate change could be entitled to reparations. Experts are still analysing the court’s advisory opinion, which is more than 500 pages long.”

→ The Guardian – 23 July 2024:

Top UN court singles out fossil fuels as part of states’ climate duty

“Landmark opinion says those that fail to prevent climate harm could be liable for compensation and restitution.”

Climate Roulette Podcast

The ICJ’s Brand New Climate Ruling

REACTIONS

A Victory for Climate Justice:

AOSIS Welcomes Landmark ICJ Ruling

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) welcomes today’s historic Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — a global affirmation that climate harm is not just unjust, it is unlawful.

This ruling is a testament to what small states can achieve through principled diplomacy, collective advocacy, and legal innovation. In 2019, 27 Pacific law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu planted the seed of an idea: that the world’s highest court could help protect the rights of nations most exposed to the climate crisis. That idea became a movement — led by youth, championed by Vanuatu, and supported by civil society, legal experts, and the solidarity of Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

In 2023, over 130 countries co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution calling on the ICJ to clarify States’ legal duties on climate change. Today, that initiative comes full circle — delivering a ruling that recognizes and reinforces key principles that AOSIS and our members have long upheld.

“This opinion reflects the strength of collective advocacy and the hope that has driven this initiative from the very beginning. It is the result of sustained advocacy by Pacific youth, legal experts from vulnerable nations, and States that chose not to remain silent. The ICJ’s findings demonstrate that moral clarity and legal authority can reinforce one another. This ruling must serve as a foundation — not a conclusion. We now call on all States to act with renewed urgency and ambition, in accordance with their legal obligations and the demands of justice.”

~ Ambassador Ilana Victorya Seid, Chair of AOSIS and Permanent Representative of Palau to the United Nations

Key legal findings welcomed by AOSIS

A binding 1.5°C obligation:

The Court affirmed that the 1.5°C target is not merely a political aspiration — it is a legally binding obligation, based on the Paris Agreement and subsequent decisions of its governing bodies. This is a revolutionary development. For SIDS, holding the line at 1.5°C is essential for continued viability.

The Court affirmed that the 1.5°C target is not merely a political aspiration — it is a legally binding obligation, based on the Paris Agreement and subsequent decisions of its governing bodies. This is a revolutionary development. For SIDS, holding the line at 1.5°C is essential for continued viability. The duty to cooperate:

The Court reaffirmed that States have a customary legal obligation to cooperate in addressing climate change. Voluntary action is not enough. Climate justice demands coordinated, sustained, and legally mandated cooperation across borders.

The Court reaffirmed that States have a customary legal obligation to cooperate in addressing climate change. Voluntary action is not enough. Climate justice demands coordinated, sustained, and legally mandated cooperation across borders. Maritime rights and sea-level rise:

AOSIS strongly supports the Court’s affirmation that sea-level rise cannot invalidate existing maritime baselines and entitlements. This provides long-awaited legal certainty to island nations whose territorial integrity is threatened by rising seas.

AOSIS strongly supports the Court’s affirmation that sea-level rise cannot invalidate existing maritime baselines and entitlements. This provides long-awaited legal certainty to island nations whose territorial integrity is threatened by rising seas. Continuity of statehood:

The Court’s opinion upholds the principle that States do not lose their legal identity or rights due to climate-induced territorial loss. This aligns with AOSIS’s long-standing position that sovereignty endures — and must be preserved — even amidst profound physical changes.

Submission of NDCs representing parties’ highest possible ambition AOSIS has continuously called for the submission of enhanced, highly ambitious NDCs by September 2025, and the AO delineates that “each party must do its utmost to ensure that the NDCS it puts forward represents its highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the agreement”. Furthermore, we welcome the decision that the standard of NDCs assessment will vary depending on historical GHG emissions, and level of development and national circumstances.

A new chapter in international law

Small Island Developing States are often called the moral voice of the climate movement. Today, we have demonstrated that our role is also legal, strategic, and enduring. The international legal system can be complex — but SIDS have shown how to navigate it with vision, determination, and skill.

This opinion is not the end of the road. It must now inform action across every level — including negotiations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, implementation of national climate policies, and interpretation of rights and obligations in courts around the world.

In an increasingly unstable world, international law offers what SIDS need most: certainty, predictability, and resilience. We will carry this ruling into every negotiation, every courtroom, and every call for justice. For small islands, this is not just about climate — it is about our future. And we will never stop defending it.

About AOSIS: Since 1990, The Alliance of Small Island States has represented the interests of the 39 small island and low-lying coastal developing states in international negotiations on climate change, sustainable development, and oceans. As a voice for the vulnerable, AOSIS is key to ensuring the United Nations mandate to “leave no one behind” is honoured. On the global stage AOSIS often punches far above its weight, negotiating historic global commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, among other achievements.

• Pacific Islands Climate Action Network’s reaction: Climate justice gets legal backbone as ICJ clarifies States’ duties on climate and human rights

• Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative’s press release includes some strong remarks from Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu that connects the dots between Vanuatu’s efforts at ICJ, ITLOS, IACHR and the push for a Fossil Fuel Treaty.

• Amnesty International, Global Climate & Health Alliance, CIEL, Oil Change International, ActionAid

• For legal analsysis thought Harj Narulla’s legal analysis of relevant paragraphs and Seb Duyck’s live thread were both very helpful.

Event today

There is a 90-minute rapid-reaction event A Verdict for the Planet: Legal and Political Reflections on the ICJ Climate Ruling webinar today that you may want to join. Details here.

“Following the historic delivery of the ICJ AO on climate change on 23rd July 2025, this seminar will provide a stage for leading experts from government, the legal fraternity, and the youth to reflect on the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on climate change. This 90-minute rapid-reaction event offers top-line legal and political analysis, framing the opinion’s implications to bolster stronger climate action from a climate justice perspective.”

Two current Australian court cases

Excerpt from ‘Insight’, the Environmental Defenders Office monthly newsletter:

Winchester South Coal Mine hearing starts this week

This is the first week of an eight-week hearing before the Land Court of Queensland, and the EDO legal team are arguing our clients’ objections to the largest proposed new coal mine in Australia – Whitehaven’s Winchester South Coal Mine.

Environmental Defenders Office are acting for Mackay Conservation Group and the Australian Conservation Foundation in this monumental case.

Our outstanding team of lawyers has been working with counsel on this case for more than a year, with multiple court appearances and interlocutory steps. Only weeks ago, we secured a win for our clients, with the court dismissing Whitehaven’s motion to block a climate expert from providing evidence to the court, Whitehaven claiming it would ‘cause chaos’. The court can now hear this expert evidence.

If the Winchester South Coal Mine goes ahead, every year for 28 years, 17 million tonnes of coal will be dug up and processed for export, eventually resulting in up to a staggering 583 million tonnes (CO2-e) of carbon pollution over its lifetime.

This case is centred on the devastating impacts of climate change in Queensland, with evidence from leading experts on the harm already experienced by Queensland’s people and precious wildlife from climate driven disasters.

Read more

Court challenge against Woodside gas approval heard last week

Last week, Environmental Defenders Office’s lawyers were in the Federal Court for the hearing of their client Doctors for the Environment Australia’s critical legal challenge to the final approval for Woodside’s Scarborough Gas Project.

This project, located off the coast of Western Australia, will result in the release of an estimated 878 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, adding to the immense health burden that climate change is already putting on the community.

In February, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) accepted Woodside’s environment plan (EP), the last approval required before work could start.

Doctors for the Environment Australia, the leading medical voice on health and climate in Australia, believes NOPSEMA acted unlawfully by accepting Woodside’s EP without fully understanding how the climate impacts of the project would be managed.

Doctors for the Environment Australia sought judicial review of the project’s EP approval to ensure regulators and proponents abide by laws that aim to mitigate environmental impacts and harm to communities.

Read more

Like this: Like Loading…

The Republic of Vanuatu, a South Pacific island nation of 320,000 people, has led a growing effort since 2021 to compel the United Nations to answer one of the most crucial legal questions related to climate change: Can polluters be held legally accountable for the harm they’ve caused as a result of releasing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere?

The short answer is: yes. Fifteen judges who make up the International Court of Justice, located at The Hague in the Netherlands, issued a unanimous advisory opinion saying countries “have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.”

The court further stated that existing environmental treaties, international human rights law, and participation in the United Nations further compels countries to do everything possible to protect the climate. Any wrongful act that violates these agreements must be immediately stopped, followed by “full reparations” and compensation made to the injured parties.

“Vanuatu looks forward to collaborating with other States on implementing the Court’s decision,” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister of climate change and environment, said in a statement. “A victory in the world’s highest court is just the beginning. Success will depend on what happens next through coordinated efforts across diplomacy, politics, litigation, and advocacy to turn this moment into a true turning point.”

Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu speaks to the media after an International Court of Justice session tasked with issuing the first advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations to address climate change, at The Hague in the Netherlands on July 23, 2025. John Thys/AFP via Getty Images

For Vanuatu, a country that comprises 83 islands with a combined size roughly the same as Connecticut, the decision is monumental. Officials said the country was responsible for less than 0.0004% of global cumulative greenhouse gas emissions between 1962 and 2022, but experiences disproportionate impacts of climate change.

In addition to its average temperature rising, Vanuatu is seeing more severe and intense tropical cyclones. In 2023, it was hit by three cyclones that were Category 4 or higher, impacting nearly 200,000 residents and costing the country more than $400 million in economic damages. The western tropical Pacific Ocean has risen 4-6 inches between 1992-2020, which is particularly dangerous for the country as much of it is low-lying and vulnerable to erosion. All of this, along with increased precipitation and periods of drought, has caused entire communities to be relocated by the government, and the impacts are anticipated to grow more severe.

“Today, the world’s smallest countries have made history,” Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said in a statement. “The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future. This ruling is a lifeline for Pacific communities on the frontline.”

While the advisory opinion is not legally binding, environmental organizations and law experts are hopeful that the ruling can set a legal precedent for the thousands of climate change cases around the world that are attempting to hold larger governments and companies accountable for climate pollution.

“This opinion can serve as a compass for countries who are thinking about how to prioritize justice and prioritize the safety of their citizens while also being in compliance with international law,” said Carly Phillips, a research scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists who worked with the legal teams of seven countries that submitted supporting statements to the court asking for the opinion.

The United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, but it did submit a written statement in March 2024 and participated in oral arguments, arguing that members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Agreement already compel signatories to address climate change impacts and protects them from accountability for harming the climate.

But Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Jotham Napat has been skeptical of the power of the U.N. convention and the Paris Agreement, saying in a statement that neither are “generating the actions the world urgently needs fast enough.” He believes a favorable opinion from the court could “support vulnerable nations in securing climate finance, technology, and loss and damage support.”

The court addressed this concern in its opinion and dismissed the legal argument that environmental treaties, like the Paris Agreement, protect polluters from accountability. In fact, the court emphasized that the Paris Agreement imposes strong mitigation and adaptation obligations on all parties and requires them to respond to loss and damages from climate change.

Given that the United States is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, according to international data, the decision to hold large emitters responsible might be concerning, but President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement for a second time earlier this year.

The court called out countries like the United States, saying that nations that are not party to climate treaties but are members of the United Nations must meet “equivalent obligations under customary international law.”

The impact of the opinion remains to be seen. “It’s likely not going to have a lot of influence in the United States,” said Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Tigre said that while the decision may not influence domestic court cases in the U.S. and the country can’t be sued under the decision, the real impact could be seen internationally. A court in Brazil, for example, could cite the opinion in one of the 135 current climate change cases making its way through its domestic court system.

The U.N. court also pointed out that corporate polluters are open to the advisory opinion, especially if they are based abroad in a country that is party to the U.N. and climate treaties. “Countries have an obligation to put an end to wrongful acts,” said Tigre. “If a country is found to be in breach by giving permits to an oil company, they may need to revoke those permits.”

Representatives for Vanuatu said the next step is to take the decision back to the U.N. General Assembly to pursue a full resolution to support the implementation of the decision. The opinion will be a primary focus when U.N. countries meet in November for the next climate change conference, known as COP30, in Brazil.