The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued its ruling on States’ legal obligations in relation to climate change.

In a watershed advisory opinion, the

International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague has said a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right, and that failing to protect the planet from the impacts of climate change may be a violation of international law.

Outlining the obligations of states to protect the human rights of citizens being impacted by rising global tempeartures, the UN’s highest court said the climate must be protected for “present and future generations”.

Reading the ruling, ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said “greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities and have crossborder effects” with far-reaching consequences.

These, he said, “underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.”

Iwasawa said countries have a duty to cooperate on preventing harm caused by climate change and must make sure their national climate targets represent the highest possible ambition.

Reacting to the decision, Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, who has been working for years to get the advisory opinion issued by the court, 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 said.

Largest case in ICJ history

The case began after students from Pacific Island countries lobbied governments into calling for the legal clarification.

The state of Vanuatu requested the ICJ to rule on the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions. And by extension present and future generations.

In December, the court heard testimonies from almost 100 countries and 12 international organizations.

Speaking at the time, Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, told judges that sea level rise driven by “unchecked emissions” was eroding island coastlines and “swallowing land that is vital to our country.”

The Caribbean archipelago is being eroded by rising sea levels and faces more intense storms as a result of the impacts of a warming world.

Also speaking as part of the December hearings, high-emitting nations, like the United States, said existing UN treaties — primarily the 2015 Paris Agreement — already provide legal obligations on action towards slowing climate change.

President Donald Trump has since announced his country’s withdrawal from the landmark accord that saw 195 nations agree to reduce carbon emissions and pursue efforts to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).

But experts say the Paris Agreement was never intended to define all laws around climate change.

How does carbon dioxide cause global warming? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) says because rising temperatures affect “almost every possible dimension of our lives,” there is scope for a lot of different laws. She also points to existing international regulations on human rights, international law and legislation around state responsibility as potential tools to enforce climate action.

“The climate treaties remain very important, they’re just not the only game in town,” she told DW.

Held accountable for historical responsibility

In bringing the case to the court, Vanuatu also asked for clarification on the legal consequences for countries that failed to meet their obligations on slowing their emissions.

Some experts say countries that have emitted most CO2 cumulatively — including the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union — carry the most responsibility for global warming.

“Past emissions matter,” Chowdhury told DW, adding that harm has already been done. “That must be recognized and repaired.”

The request for an Advisory Opinion was brought by the Pacific island Vanuatu. Image: Piroschka Van De Wouw/REUTERS

Poorer countries have long been calling for richer nations to pay for damage caused by extreme weather linked to the emissions that are heating the planet. Many of these less wealthy states are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, despite having done the least to contribute to the crisis.

The ICJ advisory warned that “adverse impacts and loss and damage will escalate with every increment of global warming”.

It made clear that countries have to meet their climate obligations or potentially see affected countries seek reparations through legal action.

A loss and damage fund was established at UN climate negotiations two years ago in Dubai, but has only received around $700 million in pledges. That is far lower than the hundreds of billions of dollars experts say climate change could cost in damages by 2030.

“At its heart, this case is about accountability. It’s a signal to end the era of empty pledges,” Chowdhury added.

The impact of climate change on human rights

The ICJ advisory opinion is one of three that have been delivered in past months outlining state obligations around climate action.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion asserting countries’ obligations to protect citizens’ human rights by ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate.

The opinion also highlighted states’ responsibility in relation to disinformation and misinformation, adding that authorities should not obstruct the population’s access to “reliable, truthful, and complete information” needed to address risks to human rights occurring through the climate emergency.

And in May last year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was the first to issue its advisory opinion recognizing greenhouse gases as a form of marine pollution.

Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant legal weight and moral authority.

One impact could be on litigation being brought against governments and companies over climate impacts. So far, around 3,000 cases have been filed in almost 60 countries. Joana Setzer, associate professorial research fellow at the Grantham Institute of the London School of Economics said the advisory opinion marks a “turning point” for litigation.

“It’s authoritative interpretation of countries’ legal obligations will serve as a crucial tool for domestic courts, litigants, and advocates striving to hold governments accountable,” she said.

Speaking ahead of Wednesday’s ruling, Chowdhury also said the advisory opinion could have far-reaching consequences for the November COP30 climate negotiations in Brazil. It could mean “not everything is up for negotiation” because some things have been clearly legally defined.

“We hope very much that this clarity will provide a very clear legal blueprint which would allow states and those most affected on the front lines to hold polluters accountable for climate disruptive conduct and to secure remedy and reparations,” she said.

Edited by: Tamsin Walker

By MOLLY QUELL, Associated Press

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations’s top court in a landmark advisory opinion Wednesday said countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, and nations harmed by its effects could be entitled to reparations.

Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice opinion on nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don’t.

“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

The non-binding opinion, which runs to over 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law.

Notably, the court said a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements.

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

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

Climate activists had gathered outside the packed court with a banner that read: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.” Afterward, others emerged laughing and hugging.

“Today, the tables have turned. The world’s highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused,” former U.N. human rights chief Mary Robinson 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,” said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.

After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the U.N. 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 1.7 inches, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.

“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.

Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision.

“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 Center for International Environmental Law, told AP.

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

But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the U.N. secretary-general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week.

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 presiding judge on Wednesday acknowledged that international law had “an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem,” and said a lasting solution will need the contribution of all fields of human knowledge “to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.”

Associated Press writer Annika Hammerschlag in Vanuatu contributed to this report.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

A “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right and, if countries fail to take “appropriate action to protect the climate system”, they could be in violation of international law, according to the UN’s top court.

Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have just delivered a long-awaited advisory opinion on nations’ climate obligations and the consequences they face if they don’t fulfil them.

“Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,” ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said.

The court affirmed that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right.

It also said that countries harmed by climate change could also be entitled to reparations, but what they are owed must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

“Today, the tables have turned,” says Mary Robinson, Member of the Elders, First woman President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“The World’s highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused.”

Climate change is an ‘urgent and existential’ threat

ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa underlined that climate change is an “urgent and existential threat” with consequences that are “severe and far-reaching”.

He said that, building on the latest science and decisions at UN climate conferences, the target of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels must be understood to be the internationally agreed-upon objective of climate policies.

Iwasawa added that countries have a duty to cooperate on preventing harm caused by climate change and must make sure their national climate targets represent the highest possible ambition.

The ICJ described the climate system as an “integral and vitally important part of the environment and which must be protected for present and future generations”.

‘The world’s smallest countries have made history’

The ruling comes after years of lobbying from vulnerable island nations led by Vanuatu, which led to the ICJ being asked by the UN General Assembly in 2023 to deliver an advisory opinion.

“Today, the world’s smallest countries have made history,” says Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.

“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.”

Ralph Regenvanu, right, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, arrives to the International Court of Justice ahead of the advisory opinion. (Ralph Regenvanu, right, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, arrives to the International Court of Justice ahead of the advisory opinion.)

A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions. Firstly, what obligations do states have under international law to address climate change for both current and future generations? Second, what are the legal consequences for states that fail to meet these obligations, causing serious climate harm?

At hearings in December last year, the ICJ heard from more than 100 countries and organisations, with written statements or comments from around 150 more, making it the largest case the top UN court has ever seen.

What does this mean for global climate action?

Though the 500-page advisory opinion is non-binding and the court can’t force countries to act, it forms an important basis for international climate obligations. All UN member states, including emitters such as the United States and China, are parties to the court.

“When a court like the ICJ recognises new connections between conduct and legal norms, like the idea that failing to curb fossil fuels-related emissions can violate international legal obligations, it does not stop there. That recognition opens the door for further legal claims,” explains Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law.

“If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress. In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum. It reshapes what is now considered legally possible, actionable, and ultimately enforceable.”

Sarah Mead, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, adds that the ruling validates what a majority of people around the world expect from their governments – meaningful climate action.

“Nearly all countries’ climate plans are falling short of what’s needed to keep everyone safe, which is why more and more people are turning to courts to hold their governments to account,” she says.

“Today, the law stands firmly on their side, confirming leaders do in fact have a duty to protect the planet and safeguard everyone’s future.”

Ahead of the ruling, activists gathered outside the court holding banners that read “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.”

An artificial intelligence agenda formed on the podcasts of Silicon Valley billionaires is now being set into U.S. policy as President Donald Trump leans on the ideas of the tech figures who backed his election campaign. Trump plans on Wednesday to reveal an “AI Action Plan” he ordered after revoking President Joe Biden’s signature AI guardrails.

The plan and related executive orders are expected to include some familiar tech lobby pitches: accelerating the sale of AI technology abroad and making it easier to construct the energy-hungry data center buildings that are needed to form and run AI products, according to a person briefed on Wednesday’s event who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. It might also include some of the AI culture war preoccupations of the circle of venture capitalists who endorsed Trump last year.

Here’s the latest:

The UN’s top court delivers landmark decision on tackling climate change

The United Nations’ top court’s advisory opinion Wednesday declares that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right.

The International Court of Justice’s opinion describes the obligations of every nation to tackle climate change — and the 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.

“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.

▶ Read more about the UN court’s landmark climate ruling

Tips to help teenagers navigate AI companions

Artificial intelligence is largely unregulated and many parents have no idea how their kids are using AI tools and what personal information they are sharing. Here are some things experts say parents can do:

1. Start a conversation, without judgment. Listen and understand before being dismissive or expressing worries.

2. Help teens recognize that AI companions are programmed to be agreeable and validating — it’s not how real friends can help.

3. Teach kids that this is a form of entertainment — it shouldn’t replace relationships in real life.

4. Watch for signs of unhealthy attachments — like becoming emotionally distressed when they put their phones down.

5. Set rules about AI use, just like parents do for screen time and social media.

6. Have discussions about when and how AI tools can and cannot be used.

7. Get informed. Many AI companions are designed for adult use and can mimic romantic, intimate and role-playing scenarios. The tools are not equipped to handle a real crisis or provide genuine mental health support.

8. Forget about banning AI tools — the technology is becoming ubiquitous. Instead, embrace the challenge of this artificial world.

▶ Read more about tips for protecting teens from AI risks

Teens turn to AI for advice, friendship and ‘to get out of thinking’

Teenagers are increasingly interacting with AI as if it were a human companion, according to a new study and interviews with The Associated Press.

“Everyone uses AI for everything now. It’s really taking over,” said Kayla Chege, who wonders how AI tools will affect her generation. “I think kids use AI to get out of thinking.”

Concerns about cheating at school have dominated the conversation around kids and AI, but artificial intelligence is suddenly playing a much larger role in many of their lives — as a go-to source for personal advice, emotional support, everyday decision-making and problem-solving.

More than 70% of teens have used AI companions and half use them regularly, according to the study from Common Sense Media, a group that advocates for using digital media sensibly.

▶ Read more about teens using AI companions

China to dispatch team to Sweden for trade talks with US

China has announced that Vice Premier He Lifeng will travel to Sweden from Sunday to Wednesday for trade talks with the U.S. side.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also has said he will be in Stockholm for trade talks with his Chinese counterpart next week.

Bessent has indicated that two sides are likely to extend the Aug. 12 deadline, set three months earlier in Geneva when Beijing and Washington agreed to walk back from sky-high tariffs. Bessent and He are taking the leads for their governments in the negotiations.

Americans are paying more for electricity and losing drinking water for AI

The tech industry has pushed for easier permitting to get huge data centers connected to power and water — even if it means consumers losing drinking water and paying higher energy bills.

On Tuesday, 95 groups including labor unions, parent groups, environmental justice organizations and privacy advocates signed a resolution opposing Trump’s embrace of industry-driven AI policy and calling for a “People’s AI Action Plan” that would “deliver first and foremost for the American people.”

Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, which helped lead the effort, said the coalition expects Trump’s plan to come “straight from Big Tech’s mouth.”

“Every time we say, ‘What about our jobs, our air, water, our children?’ they’re going to say, ‘But what about China?’” she said Tuesday. She said Americans should reject the White House’s argument that artificial intelligence is overregulated, and fight to preserve “baseline protections for the public.”

Blocking tech contractors from using ‘woke AI’

Sacks, a former PayPal executive and now Trump’s top AI adviser, has been criticizing “woke AI” for more than a year, fueled by Google’s February 2024 rollout of an AI image generator that, when asked to show an American Founding Father, created pictures of Black, Asian and Native American men.

Google quickly fixed its tool, but the “Black George Washington” moment remained a parable for the problem of AI’s perceived political bias, taken up by X owner Elon Musk, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, Vice President JD Vance and Republican lawmakers.

“The AI’s incapable of giving you accurate answers because it’s been so programmed with diversity and inclusion,” Sacks said at the time.

Elon Musk’s xAI, pitched as an alternative to “woke AI” companies, had to scramble this month to remove posts made by its Grok chatbot that made antisemitic comments and praised Adolf Hitler.

Trump’s artificial intelligence plan unveiling co-hosted by a podcast

The All-In Podcast is a business and technology show hosted by four tech investors and entrepreneurs including Trump’s AI czar, David Sacks.

The plan and related executive orders to be announced late Wednesday afternoon are expected to include some familiar tech lobby pitches — including accelerating the sale of AI technology abroad and making it easier to construct the energy-hungry data center buildings needed to run AI products, according to a person briefed on Wednesday’s event who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

It might also include some of the AI culture war preoccupations of the circle of venture capitalists who endorsed Trump last year.

▶ Read more on Trump’s Artificial Intelligence plan

Global markets rally on Trump’s Asian trade deals

Global shares rallied on Wednesday, with Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 index gaining 3.5% after Japan and the U.S. announced a deal on Trump’s tariffs.

The tariff agreement as announced calls for a 15% U.S. import duty on goods from Japan, apart from certain products such as steel and aluminum that are subject to much higher tariffs. That’s down from the 25% Trump had said would kick in on Aug. 1 if a deal was not reached.

“This Deal will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs — There has never been anything like it,” Trump posted on Truth Social, noting that Japan was also investing “at my direction” $550 billion into the U.S. He said Japan would “open” its economy to American autos and rice.

Trump announced the U.S. will place a 19% tax on goods from Indonesia and the Philippines. A senior Trump official said Indonesia will charge no tariffs on 99% of its trade with the United States and drop its nontariff barriers on U.S. goods. Trump said the U.S. won’t pay any tariffs in the Philippines, but they will pay 19%.

“President Trump has signed two trade deals this week with the Philippines and Japan which is likely to keep market sentiment propped up despite deals with the likes of the EU and South Korea remaining elusive, for now at least,” Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at Kohle Capital Markets, said in a report.

The Epstein files — delayed, but far from forgotten

House Speaker Mike Johnson rebuffed pressure to act on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, instead sending members home early on Wednesday for a month-long break from Washington after the week’s legislative agenda was upended by Republican members who are clamoring for a vote.

“There’s no purpose for the Congress to push an administration to do something they’re already doing,” Johnson said at his last weekly news conference.

The speaker’s stance did little to alleviate the intra-party turmoil unfolding on Capitol Hill as many of Trump’s supporters demand that the administration meet its promises to publicly release a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation into Epstein, who killed himself in his New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial. Under pressure from right-wing online influencers, as well as voters back home, rank-and-file Republicans are demanding House intervention.

“The public’s not going to let this die, and rightfully so,” said Rep. Ralph Norman, a South Carolina Republican.

Trump says EU will be in Washington for trade talks as tariff deadline nears

The president told congressional Republicans at a Tuesday night dinner that European Union officials will be in town Wednesday for the talks.

“We have Europe coming in tomorrow, the next day,” Trump said after announcing a trade framework with Japan.

The president sent a letter this month threatening the 27 EU member states with 30% tariffs to be imposed starting Aug. 1.