Does the World Court's Sweeping Climate Opinion Matter? Five Takeaways.

New York Times

23-07-2025

Ask for someone's opinion on something gnarly and you might get some surprisingly strong words.
That's what happened in The Hague on Wednesday, when the International Court of Justice, established by the United Nations and also known as the World Court, issued a stinging advisory opinion saying that countries have a legal obligation to limit the emissions of planet-heating greenhouse gases and provide restitution if their specific actions caused harm.
The opinion was unanimous. One legal analyst, Thomas Burri, a professor at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, called it 'unexpectedly bold.' It was the result of a yearslong effort led by the tiny Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu.
The court's opinion is not legally binding, and some countries, including the United States, haven't accepted its jurisdiction over all matters. So how does it matter?
The opinion could affect current cases, and spur more.
The court's opinion could strengthen the case that citizens' groups have made in their national courts, from Australia to Switzerland, accusing their governments of failing to protect their people from the harms of climate change. 'Courts worldwide are likely to reference this ruling in their upcoming decisions,' said Joie Chowdhury, an attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law.
Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University Law School professor, called it 'an invitation for lawsuits in many countries' courts saying not enough is being done.'
It says government support for fossil fuels may be punishable.
It concludes that state subsidies could be seen as an 'internationally wrongful act.' That's a big deal.
Many countries, rich and poor, offer a host of subsidies for coal, oil or gas. The United States had previously argued that international law does 'impose specific obligations' on the production of fossil fuels, including subsidies. The opinion says countries have a legal obligation to regulate private companies within their jurisdictions.
It strengthens calls for compensating poorer countries.
One of the most provocative issues in global climate negotiations is who should pay for the damages caused by 150 years of fossil-fuel burning. That issue pits industrialized countries against smaller climate-vulnerable nations, and it's likely to come up at the United Nations-mediated climate talks in Brazil later this year.
The court uses stark language. States have an obligation to 'compensate' if it can be shown that the actions of a state resulted in harm to others.
'This paves the way for more concrete demands around loss and damage, historical responsibility, and the rights of communities facing existential threats,' said Joana Setzer, a research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London.
Mohamed Adow, a climate activist from Kenya, called it 'a rocket boost for climate justice.'
It applies to the U.S. even though the U.S. doesn't always follow the court's findings.
The advisory opinion plainly says that international human rights law obliges every country in the world to prevent harm to the environment.
The issue is that the United States has had an ambivalent relationship with the court. It recognizes the court and appears before it frequently, but doesn't always abide by its recommendations, particularly when they run contrary to U.S. interests.
Still, said Dr. Burri of the University of St. Gallen, 'That the advisory opinion is not binding matters less than it may seem,' because 'if states were to ignore it completely because it is not binding, this would carry a price over time.'
Mr. Gerrard, of Columbia University, said he did not expect U.S. courts to enforce it.
It shows that tiny countries have muscle.
The case was initiated by Vanuatu, an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean whose 300,000 people are extremely vulnerable to disasters aggravated by the burning of fossil fuels.
It began in 2018, when a group of law students presented President Nikenike Vurobaravu with a nascent idea. The president told The New York Times in an interview in 2022 that, as an elder, he felt obliged to take up their cause.
Vanuatu's diplomats were then joined by several other small island nations. Together they persuaded other countries to seek an advisory opinion from the court. When they brought it to the United Nations General Assembly in 2023, it passed by consensus. That kind of unity is rare. The General Assembly Hall erupted in applause.
'Small countries basically rely on effective multilateralism,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate minister, said in an interview. 'We can't go it alone like the U.S. or other economies.'