Top U.N. Court Says Countries Must Act on Climate Change – The New York Times
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
UN’s top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change on Wednesday. The non-binding opinion, which runs more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. The case was 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. The opinion 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 decision is the latest in a series of legal victories for small island nations to strengthen policies to strengthen the European court of Human Rights to strengthen climate policies and protect ecosystems. The European Court of Rights ruled last year that countries have a legal duty to protect ecosystems and also to protect and restore ecosystems, by ruling that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.
Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 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 more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law.
Paves the way for other legal actions
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.
Judges are seated as the ICJ opens a hearing to deliver an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change on Wednesday. (Peter Dejong/The Associated Press)
The case was 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.
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 UN 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.
A brief history of the court case
After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising seas, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion in 2023, 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? And 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 last December.
In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres, with parts of the Pacific rising higher. The world has also warmed 1.3 C 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,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law.
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 UN 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.
WATCH | European court forces Switzerland to strengthen climate policies: European court forces Switzerland to strengthen climate policies A landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights forces Switzerland’s government to strengthen its climate policies and creates a precedent that could pave the way for more climate change courtroom clashes.
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.”
Landmark ICJ verdict on climate change: Inaction by nations is illegal; reparations possible
United Nations’s top court has said that inaction on climate change could be unlawful. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries. The ruling is not legally binding, but it marks a significant shift in climate law. Experts say this could shape future lawsuits, investment treaties, and even climate policies. The court itself admitted that law alone cannot solve the crisis, but said it plays an “important” role in shaping global responsibility. The statement alone could be used in domestic and international courts.
(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.
A Healthy Environment Is a Human Right, UN Court Rules
The International Court of Justice has ruled that all humans have “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” The ruling could allow climate activists or other entities to issue lawsuits against countries that fail to comply with the decisions. The first time an international court ruled on climate change was just last year, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries have an obligation to protect people from the effects of climate change. The timing is eerily coincident with the U.S. EPA’s plan to reconsider the “endangerment finding” in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are considered air pollutants, and that the EPA must determine whether they pose a danger to public health or welfare.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest court of the United Nations, has ruled that all humans have “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.”
“The Court is of the view that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing,” reads a line in the opinion, issued 23 July.
In a 2023 resolution, the United Nations requested that the ICJ provide an advisory opinion on the issue of states’ obligations with regard to climate change. The move was in response to advocacy by groups such as Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) and other members of vulnerable island nations. At the meeting where nations voted on the resolution, António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, noted that advisory opinions, though not legally binding, “have tremendous importance” because they summarize and provide clarification on existing law.
In its nearly 80-year history, the Court has issued 29 advisory opinions. The latest opinion is one of just five to be reached unanimously by the court’s 15 judges.
The ruling could allow climate activists or other entities to issue lawsuits against countries that fail to comply with the decisions.
“States must take this ICJ ruling and use it to advance ambitious outcomes at COP30 and beyond. People and the planet deserve it,” Erika Lennon, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP News.
Earlier in July, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IAHCR) similarly ruled that countries have a legal duty to avoid environmental harm and protect ecosystems. The first time an international court ruled on climate change was just last year, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries have an obligation to protect people from the effects of climate change. As reported in The Guardian, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has recently begun a similar process.
The advisory opinion noted that the questions the justices set out to answer in the ruling—namely, what countries are obliged to do to protect the environment from climate change and what the consequences should be if they fail to do so—“represent more than a legal problem: they concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The timing is eerily coincident with the U.S. EPA’s plan to reconsider the “endangerment finding.” In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are considered air pollutants, and that the EPA must determine whether they pose a danger to public health or welfare. In 2009, the EPA administrator signed the endangerment finding, declaring that greenhouse gases do endanger human health. On 22 July 2025, the New York Times and other outlets reported that the Trump administration had drafted a plan to repeal the finding.
—Emily Dieckman (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at [email protected] .
Text © 2025. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.
Failing to protect planet from climate change ‘could violate international law’
Advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on nations’ obligations to tackle climate change. The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. It 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 case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China are parties to the court. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. But major petroleum-producing states, such as Russia, are staunchly opposed to court mandating emissions reductions. The UN secretary-general told the Associated Press this week the issue is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters. The world has warmed 1.3C since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
“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 more than 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 such as investment agreements.
The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries.
All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China are parties to the court.
Climate activists had gathered outside the crowded court with a banner that read: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must act now.”
They watched the ruling on a giant screen, clapping and cheering at times during the two-hour hearing. When it was over, others emerged from the courtroom 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 UN 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.
An activist holds a fan that reads ‘make polluters pay’ as they demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (Peter Dejong/AP)
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 4.3cm, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3C since pre-industrial 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.
“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 lawyer at the Centre for International Environmental Law.
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 UN 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.
A gravestone lies just feet from the shoreline on Pele Island, Vanuatu (Annika Hammerschlag/AP)
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”.