UN’s top court says healthy environment is a human right in historic climate ruling
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
Countries have a duty to battle climate change: court
Non-binding advisory opinion issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands overnight. The move to ask the world court to opine on the issue was initiated by Vanuatu University law students who argued the people of Pacific island countries were unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions that the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court: 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.
Activists welcomed the non-binding advisory opinion issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands overnight as a step in the right direction.
The move to ask the world court to opine on the issue was initiated by Vanuatu University law students who argued the people of Pacific island countries were unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies.
“The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law,” presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court’s opinion.
The ICJ decision “confirms that states’ obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system … including mitigation and adaptation measures,” judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion.
“The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities,” Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said.
“It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations and a future”.
The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions that the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court: 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?
Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu called the deliberation a “very important course correction in this critically important time”.
“For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity,” he said at The Hague.
READ HERE: The summary of the #ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. https://t.co/7TWc7ifwfX pic.twitter.com/vVxxwpZpbX — CIJ_ICJ (@CIJ_ICJ) July 23, 2025
Judge Iwasawa said the two questions “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”.
“International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem,” he said.
“A complete solution to this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other.
“Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom – at the individual, social and political levels – to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.”
with AP
International Court says countries must address climate crisis in landmark opinion
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the top United Nations court, decided Wednesday that countries would be violating international law if they fail to do their part to protect the planet from ongoing climate issues. The unanimous opinion welcomed by legal experts and climate advocates as a “new era of accountability” could signal a potential turning point in international climate law. The landmark case was ignited by a grassroots movement in the small Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, but later gained backing from over 100 other countries. The UN requested the ICJ review and administer advisory opinions on the obligations of states when it comes to the impacts of climate change in 2023. The court advised state parties do, in fact, have an obligation to adopt measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and that there is a duty to cooperate with each other to meet that goal.
The unanimous opinion welcomed by legal experts and climate advocates as a “new era of accountability” could signal a potential turning point in international climate law, as the court affirmed a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right.
Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the ICJ president, detailed that such an environment is “a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights, such as the right to life, right to health, and right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing.”
Advisory opinions are not binding — they are typically viewed with authority as the World Court summarizes and distills existing law, instead of creating law.
However, they can be used in figure litigation against corporate polluters, to supplement political or climate negotiations, and could compel countries to implement stronger climate policies.
RELATED STORY | EPA is closing its research and development office as part of a major agency cut-down
Judge Iwasawa noted that international law plays a limited role in resolving the climate change problem.
“The questions posed represent more than a legal problem,” he said, “They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions, that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet. A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics, or any other.”
The UN requested the ICJ review and administer advisory opinions on the obligations of states when it comes to the impacts of climate change in 2023, with a panel of 15 judges in the Great Hall of Justice in the Netherlands considering two main questions to protect the rights of present and future generations against the adverse effects of climate change:
What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions?
What are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment?
The court advised state parties do, in fact, have an obligation to adopt measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and that there is a duty to cooperate with each other to meet that goal.
As for legal consequences, if a state breaches an obligation, the court advises that the country be held accountable via cessation of wrong actions, assurances of no repetition, and full reparation.
The International Court also affirmed that states not party to one or more of the UN climate treaties — like the United States, which pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time once President Donald Trump took office in January 2025 — must still meet equivalent obligations under customary international law.
Additionally, without naming the United States, the Court notes failure of a State to regulate fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel licenses, or fossil fuel subsidies may “constitute an internationally wrongful act.”
The landmark case was ignited by a grassroots movement in the small Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, but later gained backing from over 100 other countries, leading to an unprecedented volume of written submissions to the court.
“What a victory for climate justice!” Seb Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, posted on X following the opinion’s delivery. “On fossil fuels, right to a healthy environment, historic responsibility, compensation, duties of States withdrawing from Paris: the Court’s affirmation of legal principles will enable a new era of accountability.”
The court has spent the last two years reviewing different international treaties that exist to reach its decision, in addition to two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ.
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.”
Vanuatua climate change case: ICJ says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion on Wednesday (early Thursday AEST) in a landmark case about nations’ obligations to tackle climate change. The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures. The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court. 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 still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. “The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney-general of VanUatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December.
The International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion on Wednesday (early Thursday AEST) in a landmark case about nations’ obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don’t, calling it an “urgent and existential” threat to humanity.
“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.
A gravestone lies just metres from the shoreline on Pele Island, Vanuatu, Friday, July 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Annika Hammerschlag)
The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures, but what they are owed should be determined on a “case-by-case” basis.
The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law.
The court said a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. 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, along with legal instruments like investment agreements.
The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries.
All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China are parties to the court.
Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.”
Activists demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice ahead of an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change and what consequences they may face if they don’t, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in The Hague, Netherlands. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed.
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 Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December.
Judges, right, arrive to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change and what consequences they may face if they don’t, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in The Hague, Netherlands. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
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 still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific.
“The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, told The Associated Press .
Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision.
A sea turtle nibbles on what remains of the once vibrant reef at Havannah Harbour, off the coast of Efate Island, Vanuatu, on Sunday, July 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Annika Hammerschlag)
“What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It’s not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,” Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told AP.
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.
An activist holds a fan that reads “make polluters pay” as they demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice ahead of an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change and which consequences they may face if they don’t, on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in The Hague, Netherlands. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
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.
UN’s top court delivers historic decision on countries’ climate obligations
International Court of Justice delivers long-awaited advisory opinion on nations’ climate obligations. Ruling comes after years of lobbying from vulnerable island nations led by Vanuatu. 500-page advisory opinion is non-binding but forms an important basis for international climate obligations, says ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa. 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.
The UN’s top court has just said in a landmark climate opinion that 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.
Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are delivering a long-awaited advisory opinion on nations’ climate obligations and the consequences they face if they don’t fulfil them.
“The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is therefore inherent in the enjoyment of other human rights,” ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said.
The court recognised that climate change is an “urgent and existential threat”, saying that greenhouse gas emissions are “unequivocally caused by human activities” and have cross-border effects.
It affirmed 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 objective of climate policies.
The ICJ also 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 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.
Ralph Regenvanu, right, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change, arrives to the International Court of Justice ahead of the advisory opinion. AP Photo/Peter Dejong
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.
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.
Ahead of the ruling, activists gathered outside the court holding banners that read “Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.”