ICJ: Every country obligated by climate and other international laws to stop global warming
Legal history was made on 23 July when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its advisory opinion on the
The ICJ is the UN's main judicial body and is often referred to as the World Court. It has a dual role: first, to settle disputes between member states brought before it in accordance with international law and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorised organs and bodies of the UN.
In the advisory opinion the 15 judges of the ICJ unanimously called for greater responsibility in climate protection and commented on the following questions:
What obligations do states have under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions for states and for present and future generations?
What legal consequences arise from these obligations for states that have caused significant damage through their actions or omissions?
The judges unanimously determined that UN member states are obliged to do their utmost to slow down global warming.
I do not wish to judge whether this decision comes too early or too late, but so far it has not been possible to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, which is why the UN warned in a report last year that current climate policy would lead to warming of more than 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
The ICJ has presented a non-binding decision, the details of which certainly need to be evaluated more closely.
The ICJ is of the opinion, among other things, that climate protection agreements and customary international law impose binding obligations on the contracting states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans.
It is important to mention that, in examining its arguments, the ICJ relies primarily on the reports of the
The ICJ called on wealthy states to better fulfil their international obligations to curb environmental pollution, as they otherwise risk having to pay compensation to nations severely affected by climate change. It rejected arguments that governments are only bound by climate agreements such as the
Although the court's opinion is not binding, it carries legal and political weight in that it can at least influence future climate litigation. For example, it pointed out the possibility that large emitters could be sued more successfully in the future, which will undoubtedly be viewed critically in wealthier regions of the world.
According to the ICJ, remedial measures also include restitution — such as the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure and the restoration of ecosystems — as well as financial compensation.
The court is of the opinion that central human rights treaties, as well as the human rights recognised under customary international law, are part of the directly relevant applicable law.
Furthermore, the court considers that the principle of sustainable development, which concerns the 'need to reconcile economic development with the protection of the environment', guides the interpretation of certain treaties and the establishment of rules of customary international law. This principle gives rise to the obligation to prevent significant environmental damage and to strive for a fairer distribution of the burdens of climate change obligations, including for future generations, taking into account the historical and current contributions of states.
So, under international law, every country must do its best to stop global warming from exceeding the 1.5°C mark.
According to the ICJ, this legal obligation arises not only from the Paris Agreement, but also from human rights, maritime law and the customary international law obligation to prevent transboundary damage.
The ICJ's clarification advocates for greater coherence in international law, placing the protection of the climate system on the basis of stricter due diligence obligations.
The ICJ's opinion is in line with recent statements by other international courts. These include the opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 2025, the opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the climate lawsuit brought by the association
KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz
against Switzerland in 2024.
According to international law, the ICJ states that the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights. Of course, this perception could be limited by the fact that the United States, historically the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, wants to reverse its climate responsibility.
In any case, the ICJ opinion is likely to change a lot in terms of the upcoming climate negotiations in Brazil in November 2025 and new climate lawsuits.
UN secretary general António Guterres already sees the ICJ opinion as a victory for the planet. According to him, states must act against fossil fuels. If they fail to prevent climate damage, they could be ordered to pay reparations.
But it will probably not be quite that simple. There are still some tough legal hurdles to overcome. In addition, the fight against climate change must be taken up by society as a whole and across all disciplines, including politics and economics, not only by international law. Nevertheless, the ICJ has elevated the discussion to another level.
Oliver C Ruppel is professor at the Faculty of Law at Stellenbosch University, where he also heads the Development and the Rule of Law Programme, which is under the Stellenbosch Climate School. Ruppel is a member of the World Commission on Environmental Law of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which was involved in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice that concluded last week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
France carries out first aid airdrop in Gaza
Palestinians carry bags of flour that they obtained from aid trucks which entered Gaza through the Zikim crossing point, in Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip. President Emmanuel Macron said Friday France had carried out its first airdrop of humanitarian supplies into Gaza, after UN-backed experts warn the Israeli-blockaded Palestinian territory was slipping into famine. "Faced with an urgent humanitarian crisis, we just conducted a food airdrop over Gaza," Macron said in English on X. "But airdrops are not enough. Israel must grant full humanitarian access to address the risk of famine," he said. He thanked France's Jordanian, Emirati, and German partners for their support.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
A small UNFCCC budget fight signals a big climate justice crisis
Last month, I sat in a small room in Bonn as negotiators at the UN's midyear climate talks (SB62) haggled for days over something that rarely makes headlines: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC's) core budget. At the 11th hour, while the closing plenary had already begun and mild panic had set in, negotiators eked out an agreement to a meagre 10% increase for 2026-2027 — well below what the Secretariat says is needed to deliver the promises of the Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC had proposed a budget increase of 24.4%, which would have allowed it to cover 84% of essential activities. But instead, it will only have enough for 74% of its core work. To many, this sounds like technical bureaucracy. And judging by chats I've had with friends and colleagues, most people don't think about where the budget for the UNFCCC comes from at all. But this budget fight cuts to the heart of climate justice — especially for developing countries in Africa, which rely most on a functioning, well-resourced UN climate system to secure fair support for climate finance and a just transition. Since the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC's mandate and workload has ballooned — from the Global Stocktake to the New Quantified Goal on Climate Finance, the Global Goal on Adaptation, and Article 6 on carbon markets. A growing agenda is not necessarily a negative. If anything, it's partially a sign of success. Climate change is a multi-faceted crisis and countries most affected have continuously pushed for ambitious action. The UNFCCC may not have delivered the scale of finance and action needed, but securing expansive agenda items on finance, adaptation, and loss and damage has been key. It is currently the only platform where countries that are home to the major polluters and majority of the world's wealth have to stand toe-to-toe with the countries that are home to 80% of the world's population and those most affected by climate impacts. However Party-mandated activities have increased to around 500 events aimed at keeping negotiations moving forward. The core budget that keeps the Secretariat's doors open, and pays for services, supports national delegations and funds capacity-building, hasn't kept pace. How the UNFCCC funds its work Countries fund the core work of the UNFCCC just like in other UN bodies, although other actors can donate additional funds for supplementary activities. The UNFCCC uses the UN scale of assessments, adjusted to its membership, to calculate each Party's fair share of the agreed budget, meaning each Party pays roughly according to their GNI. Parties approve each new budget, and therefore how much they will have to pay. At SB62, the UNFCCC requested a 24.4% increase to cover new mandates and inflation. Instead, Parties settled for less than half that, and the budget shortfall now has to be made up by voluntary donations. This tension is not new. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell has increasingly warned Parties about the crisis – that chronic underfunding weakens the mechanisms that ensure countries deliver on climate commitments. The impact is beginning to show, including cancellations of regional climate weeks. But the direction of travel is now particularly concerning. The last UNFCCC budget approved a 19% increase, or roughly two-thirds of the increase requested. A 10% budget increase at SB62 is only half of what was requested and represents a dramatically widening budget shortfall. From core budgets to voluntary contributions It's difficult to accept that Parties cannot afford the additional increase when the money the UNFCCC is requesting is essentially pocket change. The Secretariat requested roughly €46-million, or R947-million, per annum. Those sound like big numbers, but the entire UNFCCC annual budget is only 1.6% of South Africa's modest defence budget. Or less than half of our R2.3-billion VIP protection budget. Or approximately 0.034% of South Africa's annual R2.59-trillion budget. The amount is so small South Africa could cover it in entirety — even without contributions from all 197 countries. But our actual contribution is €110,000, approximately 0.00004% of our annual budget. Wealthier countries pay slightly more — the largest share ($9.6-million) goes to the US — but that's still only 0.0001% of their $7-trillion annual budget. It's surreal that the wealthiest countries sit around a table telling each other they 'just can't afford' to spend another 0.00001% on the functioning of a platform they all say is 'essential' to climate action. As negotiators from small island states and least developed countries raised in budget negotiations, current practice has increasingly become that countries agree at COPs to big decisions, signalling ambition and action to the world and solidarity with one another — only to convene six months later in a small, sparsely attended room in which countries say they can't afford the big decisions they agreed to when the world was watching. Yet, the same countries who argue UNFCCC increases are unaffordable often offer large voluntary donations. In 2024, Japan voluntarily gave an extra $11.8-million to the UNFCCC, 300% more than the $2.9-million Japan owed. Many countries have done the same. In 2023, Spain offered an extra $7.9-million and Germany gave an extra $6.9-million. In 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic and unprecedented global spending increases, wealthy countries still managed to volunteer an extra $10.6-million. Those voluntary contributions can be earmarked for specific activities, although this is not always made public. So effectively, wealthy countries are pushing back on the compulsory core budget and instead opting to provide budget that they can earmark. They may prefer to have this flexibility for their own political and administrative reasons. But this shift gives them increasingly more influence over which of the underfunded mandates they wish to save, and which should languish in obscurity — another form of soft power in an already unfairly stacked playing field. The UNFCCC's legitimacy — especially for Africa — depends on whether it works for those with the least capacity to influence powerful blocs behind closed doors. Meanwhile, underfunding slows implementation of decisions that matter most for climate-vulnerable nations. A symptom of a bigger multilateral malaise The UNFCCC's struggles echo what's happening throughout the UN system, where budget shortfalls are even more extreme — as much as 20% of the UN's budget and 7,000+ UN jobs could be cut. The Trump administration and its allies have certainly escalated this crisis, but it is not new. Increasingly, critical global public goods are left to the mercy of voluntary donations which can be shaped by donor priorities, not shared needs. To some degree, the reason the UNFCCC hasn't faced a much bigger crisis is the whim of one billionaire — Mike Bloomberg has offered to pick up the US's tab for 2025 despite Donald Trump's decision to exit the Paris Agreement. But should the integrity of the only global multilateral platform dedicated to the largest crisis facing our planet rest on wealthy individuals? It's impossible to separate this from the wider climate finance crisis. The world's wealthiest countries have long dodged or fudged their contributions to global climate finance goals, and haggled over peanuts while dedicating 20 times those amounts to military spending and fossil fuel subsidies. Even where funds do flow, they come with strings attached and often favour mitigation investments over the adaptation priorities of African countries. This tiny UNFCCC budget fight is the institutional side of that same coin. A quiet fight that deserves more noise If the UNFCCC weakens, African countries lose one of the few spaces where their collective voice can put pressure on big polluters, demand fair access to finance and highlight their adaptation priorities. Climate justice advocates cannot afford to only watch over the big-headline negotiations. The fight for the UNFCCC is also in the tiny line items buried in 60+ pages of budget proposals. The credibility of the institution — and the fairness it offers the most climate vulnerable — will be written between those lines. And the rooms discussing them shouldn't be so sparse. DM
TimesLIVE
a day ago
- TimesLIVE
UN says DRC rebels killed scores of farmers, M23 suggests 'smear'
An M23 rebel attack on farmers and other civilians in east Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) killed 169 people earlier this month, a UN body told Reuters, in what would be one of the deadliest incidents since the Rwanda-backed group's resurgence. M23 leader Bertrand Bisimwa told Reuters it would investigate but the report could be a "smear campaign". The U.N. rights body's account has not been previously reported and emerged as US President Donald Trump's administration pushes for peace between DRC and Rwanda that it hopes will unlock billions in mineral investments. Reuters has not been able to independently confirm the killings but a local activist cited witnesses as describing M23 combatants using guns and machetes to kill scores of civilians. The M23 and Congolese government have pledged to work towards peace by August 18 after the rebels this year seized more territory than ever before in fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more. According to findings by the UN Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO), which monitors DRC, the M23 operation that led to the farmers' killings began on July 9 in the Rutshuru territory of North Kivu province.
