Login to Continue Learning
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), established in 1945 as part of the United Nations, issued a landmark advisory opinion in July 2025. This opinion declared that all countries have an international legal obligation to protect and prevent harm from climate change.
#### Why Island Nations Called for a Formal Opinion
The ruling stems from years of grassroots and youth-led organizing by Pacific Islanders. The court’s decision is seen as a “turning point” for frontline communities worldwide, especially small island states like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Barbados. These nations are among the most vulnerable to climate change despite contributing little to global emissions.
#### Implications for Small Island States
For many of these islands, sea-level rise poses an existential threat. Some Pacific atolls sit just 1 to 2 meters above sea level and are slowly disappearing due to rising waters. Saltwater intrusion threatens drinking water supplies and crops. The economies of these countries depend on tourism, agriculture, and fishing, all sectors disrupted by climate change.
**Examples:**
– **Coral Reefs:** Coral reefs are bleaching more often and dying due to ocean warming and acidification, undermining fisheries, marine biodiversity, and economic sectors such as tourism.
– **Satellite Images:** The Maldives, with an average elevation of less than 5 feet (1.5 meters), faces significant challenges. Some projections suggest that the Maldives could become largely uninhabitable within decades.
**Cultural Impact:**
Becoming climate refugees can be culturally destructive and emotionally painful as people move to new countries, separating them from their homelands.
#### More Than a Nonbinding Opinion
The ICJ’s advisory opinions, while nonbinding, still hold significant legal and political weight. The court’s 15 judges can weigh in on abstract legal issues without formal disputes between states. In this case, the ICJ affirmed that obligations to protect the climate system are indeed matters of international environmental law, human rights law, and general principles of state responsibility.
#### What the Court Decided
The ICJ addressed two key questions:
1. **Obligations under International Law:** All countries must ensure the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
2. **Legal Consequences for Breach:** In cases where a country breaches its obligations, it must stop polluting activities, prevent future harm, and provide reparations.
The court clarified that all countries have a legal duty under customary international law to prevent climate harm. It also highlighted the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility,” which holds that countries with greater contributions to climate change may bear greater responsibility for repairing damage.
#### What Does This Mean for the US?
In the U.S., this advisory opinion is unlikely to have much direct legal impact due to the country’s long-standing constitutional principles and its stance on international law. The U.S. has not consented to ICJ jurisdiction in previous climate cases, making contentious cases before the court rare.
The ruling sends a clear message: All countries are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and cannot escape responsibility simply because they aren’t solely at fault. This is particularly significant given the current hostile political climate surrounding climate change.
#### The Takeaway
The ICJ’s advisory opinion marks a turning point in the global effort to hold countries responsible for climate change. Vulnerable nations now have a legally grounded basis to claim rights and press for accountability against historical and ongoing climate harm, including financial claims. How this will be used in the coming years remains unclear, but it gives small island states a powerful narrative and legal tool set.
This ruling underscores the international community’s commitment to ensuring the health of the global environment is a shared responsibility.
