Historic ruling finds climate change ‘imperils all forms of life' and puts laggard nations on notice
The court delivered its long-awaited advisory opinion overnight. The momentous case opens the door for countries impacted by climate disasters to sue major emitting countries for reparations.
And citizens could seek to hold governments to account for a failure to safeguard their human rights if their own or other countries fail to take adequate action to ensure a safe climate.
Here's what the court ruled – and the global ramifications likely to flow from it.
Climate change breaches human rights
The ICJ case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. They successfully launched a campaign for the court to examine two key issues: the obligations of countries to protect the climate from greenhouse gases, and the legal consequences for failing to do so.
A man uses a chainsaw on a fallen tree in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in 2023 after a cyclone barreled through the Pacific island nation. The International Court of Justice case was instigated by law students at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu in 2019. File photo: Matt Hardwick/Australian Broadcasting Corp. via AP
The court found a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of many other human rights. As such, it found, the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.
The ruling confirms climate change is much more than a legal problem. Rather, the justices concluded, it is an "existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet".
Most nations have signed up to global human rights agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICJ ruling means parties to those agreements must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.
An advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is not legally binding. But it is an authoritative description of the state of the law and the rights of countries to seek reparations if the law is breached. As such, it carries great legal weight.
Just as climate science assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become the gold standard for understanding the causes and impacts of climate change, the court's ruling provides a clear baseline against which to assess countries' action, or inaction, on climate change.
Keeping 1.5°C alive?
In recent years, many states' emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement have seemed to 'settle' at levels which would hold global temperature increases to 2°C at best. But the International Court of Justice ruled the much more ambitious 1.5°C goal had become the scientifically-based consensus target under the Paris Agreement.
Some countries argued formal emissions targets should be left to the discretion of each government. However, the court found against this. Rather, each nation's targets had to be in line with – and make an adequate contribution to – the global goal of holding heating to 1.5°C.
The court found each state's emissions reduction pledges should be judged against a stringent 'due diligence' standard. The standard takes into account each country's historical contributions to emissions, level of development and national circumstances, among other factors.
The ruling means rich countries, such as Australia, will be required under international law to make more ambitious emission-reduction pledges under the Paris Agreement, such as for the 2035 target currently under consideration by the Albanese government.
The court decision also provides a measure of climate justice for small island states, which have historically low emissions but face a much higher risk of damage from climate change than other nations.
Holding states accountable for inaction
Because climate change is global, it is difficult – but not impossible – to attribute damage from extreme weather to the actions of any one nation or group of nations.
On this question, the court said while climate change is caused by the cumulative impact of many human activities, it is scientifically possible to determine each nation's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.
If a nation experiences damage caused by the failure of another nation, or group of nations, to fulfil international climate obligations, the ruling means legal proceedings may be launched against the nations causing the harm. It may result in compensation or other remedies.
For small, climate-vulnerable nations such as those in the Alliance of Small Island States, this opens more legal options in their efforts to encourage high-emitting nations to properly address climate change.
Importantly, the court made clear nations can be legally liable even if damage from climate change comes from many causes, including from the activities of private actors such as companies.
That means nations cannot seek an exemption because others have contributed to the problem. They must also act to regulate companies and other entities under their jurisdiction whose activities contribute to climate change.
Paris Agreement quitters aren't safe
One line of argument put to the court by Australia and other states was that climate treaties represented the only obligations to tackle climate change under international law. But the court found this was not the case. Rather, other international laws applied.
The United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year. The court's opinion means the US and other nations are still accountable for climate harms under other international laws by which all countries are bound.
Could this lead to greater climate action?
The International Court of Justice has produced a truly historic ruling.
It will set a new baseline in terms what countries need to do to address climate change and opens up new avenues of recourse against high-emitting states not doing enough on climate change.
Jacqueline Peel is Professor of Law and Director of the Melbourne Climate Futures at The University of Melbourne
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: ICC justice for Netanyahu? Maybe not — but the arrest warrant still changes everything
In school, most of us learned about The Hague the way one learns about algebra or Shakespeare — with begrudging reverence. A solemn Dutch city, home to two of the most formidable-sounding institutions ever cooked up by the sober minds of the post-Second World War West — the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). One for disputes between states. The other for the monsters among us — war criminals, genocidaires, and heads of state with more skeletons than mistresses. But lately, those halls of justice have grown quiet. The problem isn't just that people have stopped listening to the verdicts. It's as if they've stopped pretending to care at all. If all the courts can do is issue warrants nobody will enforce, then what is the point? Last year, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, tied to Israel's genocide in Gaza. We know by now who said what, but it's instructive to go back in time a little, and learn that none of what we heard came as a surprise. In March 2021, the ICC formally launched an investigation into alleged violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, covering actions by Israel and Hamas dating back to 2014. The investigation focused on alleged war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The announcement triggered strong, sharply divided reactions from governments, human rights organisations, and legal observers. Israel, unsurprisingly, strongly condemned the ICC's decision. Netanyahu called it 'the essence of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy', further citing that the ICC had no jurisdiction, as Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute (the founding treaty of the ICC), and that Palestine, in Israel's view, is not a sovereign state capable of delegating jurisdiction. The Israeli government doubled down, vowing to protect its military personnel and refuse co-operation. The Palestinian Authority (the much-maligned Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the Israeli-occupied West Bank) welcomed the decision as a long-awaited step toward justice, calling it 'a historic day for the principle of accountability'. It viewed it as international recognition of its right to seek legal redress for Israeli actions. The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Two decades on, the court has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Picture: AP The US, under the Biden administration at that point, strongly opposed the ICC investigation. Then US secretary of state Antony Blinken said: 'We firmly oppose and are deeply disappointed by the ICC prosecutor's announcement.' Washington took the opportunity to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to 'self-defence' and echoed concerns over jurisdiction. So, although president Biden had lifted Trump-era sanctions on the ICC, the administration remained hostile to this investigation. In Europe, reactions ranged from the technical (Germany and Hungary opposed on jurisdictional grounds) to tentative support (France and Belgium respected the court's independence, even if they had concerns). It is important to note that the 2021 investigation pre-dated October 2023 by over two years, and while no arrest warrants were issued at that point, it marked a turning point in international law regarding how Israel would be treated in its ongoing occupation of Palestine, and its military operations therin. In essence, the reactions in 2021were just an appetiser for those that followed the May 2024 decision that 'there were reasonable grounds' to believe Netanyahu, Gallant, and several Hamas officials had committed international crimes since October 7. On that basis, the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif (later withdrawn after reports of his death). Israel, if it were so inclined to take heed, had been warned by the ICC in 2021. It ploughed on regardless. Today, in August 2025, Netanyahu isn't in a holding cell. Neither is Vladimir Putin, who had his own ICC warrant slapped on his name last year. Sudan's Omar al-Bashir evaded capture for over a decade despite indictments and a passport that read like a serial offender's travel diary. The ICC shouts into the void, and the void responds with billions of dollars of military aid and state dinners. So what went wrong? Or perhaps more honestly, was it ever really right? The roots of these courts are noble, born from the most ignoble chapters of human history. After the unthinkable horrors of the Holocaust, the international community collectively said 'never again'. The Nuremberg Trials in 1945 introduced the novel idea that even heads of state could be held accountable. The precedent gave rise to the ICJ in 1945, the UN's 'principal judicial organ', meant to settle disputes between countries. Think of it as marriage counselling for nations with nuclear weapons. Then, in 2002, came the ICC — a separate body entirely. Born of the Rome Statute, it was designed to prosecute individuals for four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the elusive crime of aggression, which sounds like something out of a philosophy exam paper. The ICC was supposed to be the last line of defence for victims when national courts were unwilling or unable to act. A legal lighthouse amid stormy seas. But there were always caveats. Big ones. The US, China, and Russia never ratified the Rome Statute. Israel signed it but later 'unsigned' it — an act that should be impossible, but like many things in geopolitics, defies logic. Without these major players on board, the ICC became a court with jurisdiction over everyone except the people most likely to ignore it. So, how is the ICC doing two decades on? It has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Critics have long accused the court of selective justice, a phrase that sounds like something from a dystopian menu: 'Would you like your international law with or without hypocrisy?' Emergency services personnel work to extinguish a fire following a Russian attack in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Picture: Ukrainian Emergency Service via AP Meanwhile, the ICJ, for its part, has presided over more than 180 disputes, many of them relating to maritime boundaries. It has done admirable work in the dry, academic realm of state-to-state conflict resolution. But unlike the ICC, the ICJ can't issue arrest warrants or hold individuals responsible. It depends on voluntary compliance. That's a bit like having a referee at a boxing match who can only politely ask you to stop punching. Despite their apparent impotence, there is an argument that if neither court existed, you'd invent them both tomorrow. 'Both the ICJ and ICC have major political impact, that perhaps supersedes any ability it lacks to follow through on arrest warrants,' argues Maryam Jamshidi, an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School. 'The legal arguments the ICJ and ICC are making remain the most effective way to shut down any discussion that what Israel is doing is anything other than war crimes.' There is huge symbolism, too, in those who are bringing the cases to the courts, and those who are rejecting them. 'The construct of contemporary international law is, in and of itself, very much a product of the West and Western interests. But over time, especially since decolonisation after the Second World War, the Global South has asserted its role and place in holding actors accountable. 'This moment — with Israel's crimes in Palestine front and centre — is a moment that the Global South is shaping. It is holding a mirror to the West. How we think about genocide, how we think about occupation and colonisation. That is incredibly important. If international law is to have a future, the Global South needs to continue to lead the way, because the Global South understands better than anyone.' Last year, ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Picture: AP So here we are. Two international courts, plenty of legal muscle on paper, but little in the way of teeth when it comes to the powerful. They can indict. They can admonish. But increasingly, they cannot compel. 'Yes,' Jamshidi agrees, 'but the courts are a critical weapon in a wider ideological war. They use sound legal arguments to shape the narrative and apply political pressure. The most significant aspect of the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant was that they were the first issued for 'Western' leaders. That's not nothing.' Power has shifted. The UN Security Council, still stuck in 1945 with its five permanent members, can't agree on lunch, never mind accountability. Multipolarity has returned, and with it, a jostling of narratives. Everyone's got a skeleton to show, and no one wants to open the closet. And yet, the need for justice hasn't disappeared. If anything, it's more acute. In Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine, in Myanmar, real people continue to pay the price for the hubris and avarice of their leaders. The legal frameworks exist. The moral arguments are clear. But the enforcement mechanisms are laughably absent. What's next? So what comes next? Some argue for regional courts — African, Asian, or European criminal tribunals, more culturally and politically embedded, less burdened by the Global North-South mistrust. Others speak of truth and reconciliation commissions, like those pioneered in South Africa, which trade prosecution for collective healing. There's also the tech-utopian fantasy: AI-driven evidence collection, blockchain-protected war crime registries, crowdsourced justice via global citizen tribunals. But these ideas, while shiny, are fraught with their own dangers and easily co-opted. Realistically, what we may see is a shift toward informal legitimacy over formal legality. Sanctions, visa bans, public shaming, asset freezes — none of these are justice in the Nuremberg sense, but they may be the closest we get in a world where power trumps process. Perhaps, too, we must rethink what justice looks like. Less about punishment, more about prevention. Less about dragging leaders to The Hague, more about making it politically impossible for them to commit atrocities in the first place. That's a long road. It involves education, diplomacy, and strengthening domestic institutions. But then, so did the building of these courts. What, then, will we teach our children? There's a bench in The Hague. It sits silently beneath a row of flags and beside the empty dock where tyrants are supposed to face their reckoning. Today, it feels like theatre — well-meaning theatre, perhaps, but theatre all the same. A performance of justice rather than its practice. And yet, something nags at the conscience. That small, stubborn belief that laws matter. That truth has weight. That even in an age of polarisation and propaganda, the idea of accountability shouldn't die so easily. Maybe the ICC is failing. Maybe the ICJ is ignored. But the alternative isn't attractive, and perhaps, as Jamshidi argues, the symbolism of its rulings and the discomfort those rulings impart outweigh the futility of its warrants.
Irish Independent
5 days ago
- Irish Independent
Two human rights groups in Israel accuse their country of genocide in Gaza
The claims by B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel add to a debate over whether Israel's military offensive in Gaza – launched in response to Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack that killed about 1,200 people and took more than 250 hostage –amounts to genocide. The Palestinians, their supporters and international human rights groups make that claim, and the International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel. But in Israel, founded in the wake of the Holocaust, even the government's strongest critics have largely refrained from making such accusations. That is because of the deep sensitivities and strong memories of the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews, and because many in Israel view the war in Gaza as a justified response to the deadliest attack in the country's history and not an attempt at extermination. The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticise Israel's conduct in Gaza. Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel. 'Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel ... coming to this conclusion is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality,' he said. Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic. It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants.
Irish Times
5 days ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the ICJ climate change decision: a far-reaching legal statement
The decision by the International Court of Justice on the responsibility of states to protect the rights of current and future generations to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is the most far-reaching legal statement on the issue to date. The verdict, delivered in the Hague late week, has immense implications in spelling out who is responsible for climate change and an overheating world. It has brought consolation to states that are most vulnerable to human-induced global warming, particularly Africa and low-lying Pacific island states who were instrumental in having the case heard at the UN court. It is a key decision which should guide delivery of climate justice across the planet. It is considered the clearest legal affirmation to date that cooperation among states to address climate change is not optional, but rather is a binding obligation. Governments must tackle fossil fuels, the single biggest contributor to the climate crisis. Critically, failing to prevent harm to the climate could result in them being ordered to pay reparations or other forms of restitution. While this is an advisory opinion, it provides unprecedented legal clarity on how existing international norms apply to addressing climate change, with significant implications for fossil fuel production and transitioning to a clean energy future. Moreover, the courts also found states were legally liable for the actions of the private sector and must regulate corporate activities. READ MORE According to environmental law specialists, the ruling could open the door for more litigation against corporate carbon polluters and allow for states to return to the ICJ to hold each other to account. The world's largest emitters are most liable. Within that cohort, major economies – notably the US, China, India and Russia as well as petrostates – will not be deterred by this outcome. Their attempts to justify continued fossil fuel extraction have been rejected by the world's highest court. The spectre of reparations will lurk around every corner for decades to come. Fossil fuel companies, especially those recently reverting to the core activities of generating oil and gas and divesting from renewables, should take heed of this judgement as such activity will be regarded as reckless – and aggravated damages will be justified. This decision will embolden progressive countries increasingly aware that swift emissions reductions are needed to ensure a safe future for humanity. The Irish Government in line with its wish to be a global leader in addressing the climate crisis should be proactive and consider enshrining the right to a healthy environment in the Constitution. And it must join others in taking concerted global action by reducing emissions, removing carbon, restoring ecosystems and building resilience for what is come.
