Pakistan hails ICJ advisory on states' climate obligations

Express Tribune

24-07-2025

A general view of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, December 9, 2019. REUTERS
Listen to article
Pakistan has welcomed the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of states regarding climate change, calling it a reaffirmation of key international legal responsibilities in addressing the global climate crisis.
ICJ said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. The failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate.
In a statement released on Thursday, the Government of Pakistan said the opinion 'underscores the urgent global challenge posed by climate change and reaffirms critical legal obligations under international law.'
The Attorney General for Pakistan, Mansoor Usman Awan, had delivered oral submissions before the ICJ on April 15, 2025, emphasizing the need to recognize states' duty to prevent significant environmental harm as 'an obligation that transcends borders and demands stringent diligence from every State.'
Islamabad also submitted two detailed written statements to the court on March 21 and August 9, 2024, reinforcing its position on states' responsibilities under international environmental law.
ICJ has affirmed several key positions advanced by Pakistan in its advisory opinion on states' legal responsibilities concerning climate change, the government said.
Read: World's top court paves way for climate reparations
The Court confirmed that the longstanding customary international law principle of preventing significant environmental harm applies explicitly to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling reinforces that states are obligated to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing significant transboundary environmental harm.
The ICJ affirmed that specialized climate agreements—such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement—do not override the broader obligation of prevention under customary international law.
This ruling supports Pakistan's position, which rejected the idea that these treaties represent lex specialis capable of limiting or displacing the general environmental duties that all states must uphold.
ICJ has acknowledged that states have extraterritorial human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) when activities within their borders cause harm beyond them, including climate-related impacts.
The ruling aligns with Islamabad's submission that states bear responsibility for human rights violations resulting from actions or omissions that lead to significant environmental harm affecting people in other countries.
'As one of the countries most significantly impacted by climate-induced events,' the statement said, 'Pakistan urges all nations to rigorously comply with their legal obligations and to strengthen global collaborative efforts to mitigate climate change and support adaptation measures.'
Moreover, the opinion by the ICJ was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities.
Read more: 'Govt prepared to tackle climate impact'
This opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ when the judges were asked by the UN General Assembly to consider two questions: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system?
Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid.
They had sought clarification from the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Late last year, in the "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate-related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.