A climate 'reckoning' just unfolded at the International Court of Justice. What does it mean?

Australia Broadcast Center

24-07-2025

It's been hailed as a "planetary scale" win for climate advocates pushing for stronger action against carbon pollution.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so.
Observers say it's a clear victory for nations, led by Pacific Island country Vanuatu, that campaigned for the case to be heard at the world's highest court.
"It's hard to overstate how momentous this ruling is," said Wesley Morgan, a research associate with UNSW's Institute for Climate Risk and Response.
And environmental advocates and experts say the decision will have consequences for Australia — a major exporter of fossil fuels — that could include legal action.
So what was the case about? What did the ICJ decide?
And what does it mean for climate change action?
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, was asked to give an opinion about the obligations of nations to prevent climate change — and the consequences for them if they fail.
It's the first time the court has made a decision on a climate change case.
It involved a record number of countries in The Hague, in the Netherlands, and the court's 15 judges spent months poring over tens of thousands of pages of documents before reaching a decision.
But, the road to the ICJ started in a classroom back in 2019, when a group of Pacific Islander law students in Vanuatu looked for a way to solve the apparent international "deadlock" on climate change action.
They decided to ask the World Court to clarify what responsibilities nations had to address climate change, and soon gained diplomatic support from Vanuatu's government, which led a successful global campaign for the ICJ to hear the case.
More than six months after 100 nations made their arguments at the court in December, the judges handed down their long-awaited decision on Wednesday, local time.
The ICJ issued a clear and unanimous decision on the issue.
It declared countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions.
The court also found that failing to do so is a "wrongful act" that could mean polluting nations have to pay reparations to countries harmed by climate change.
It rejected arguments put forward by high-emitting nations that it was impossible to attribute greenhouse gas emissions to individual countries.
And it said a "clean, healthy and stable environment" is a human right.
Importantly for Australia, the ICJ singled out fossil fuels in its decision.
The judges found that fossil fuel production and consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies may constitute internationally wrongful acts.
The court also found countries are responsible for regulating the emissions of private companies.
While the ICJ's 500-page decision is non-binding, observers say it will reach far and wide in its impact.
"We have a ruling today that will reverberate around the world and will echo through history," Dr Morgan said.
"This is a planetary scale decision.
"Today is actually a day of reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and for governments that continue to allow fossil fuel companies to harm the Earth's climate system."
Experts say first, it will strengthen the hand of nations vulnerable to climate change in talks such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP.
"Those states are able to go into those negotiations armed with this very powerful advisory opinion," Australian National University professor in international law Donald Rothwell said.
Vanuatu's special envoy on climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, told the ABC the finding had shifted discussions from one of "voluntary commitments" to reduce emissions, to one about legally binding obligations under international law.
And if those talks come to nought, the decision also paves the way for legal action, Professor Rothwell said.
"The advisory opinion really opens the door for litigation to proceed by those specially affected states being able to rely upon the very clear outline of the extent of the obligations … that the court talks about in its opinion."
Australia co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution referring the case to the ICJ.
But it later drew rebuke from climate advocates after its arguments to the court diverged sharply from those of Pacific Island nations.
While Vanuatu urged the ICJ to use a broad set of international laws in reaching its decision, Australia argued that nations' obligations largely did not extend beyond major international climate treaties, including the Paris Agreement.
The ICJ has not accepted Australia's argument — one that was also put forward by other large carbon-emitting nations.
Observers and environmental advocates say the advisory opinion will impact Australia.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said it made clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production — whether used domestically or exported — due to the significant harm it causes and "regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned".
Isabelle Reinecke, executive director and founder of the Grata Fund, said the advisory opinion seriously calls into question the legality of Australia's past and ongoing approval of fossil fuel projects and its subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
"It makes crystal clear that so long as the Australian government's efforts to protect the world's climate system fall short of stabilising global heating at 1.5 degrees, it could be liable to litigation from other countries."
And shortly after the ICJ handed down its finding, Mr Regenvanu did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries, including Australia.
An Australian government spokesperson on Thursday morning said it recognises that climate change "is one of the greatest existential threats to all humanity, and that it's having a significant effect on our region".
"The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change," the spokesperson said.
They said the government would embed serious climate targets in law and make the changes necessary to achieve them.
"We will now carefully consider the court's opinion."
Pacific countries are celebrating the ICJ's decision after leading the charge for nations vulnerable to climate change at the court.
Fiji's prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, said the country was grateful for the advisory opinion.
Reverend James Bhagwan, general-secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches and leading climate justice advocate for Pacific Island communities, described it as a "call to conscience".
"Now we can really hold states accountable if they are not doing enough. And this can also be applied to companies and industries as well," he said.
"If a healthy environment is a human right, then rivers, forests, mountains, and the ocean must be recognised as rights-bearing entities."
For Pacific Island nations experiencing major cyclones, coastal inundation and sea level rise, the court case was about survival, Dr Morgan said.
"They know that today the Pacific has again shaped global efforts to tackle the climate crisis," he said.
Vepaiamele Trief, a 16-year-old Save the Children youth ambassador, said the advisory opinion will pave the way for a safer future for young people.
"I really hope to see more climate action from all states, but mainly large polluting states that need to be held accountable for their actions."