The World Court throws f-bombs — and lots of 'em

National Observer

6 days ago

It's been a long time coming, but when the World Court delivered its opinion on climate change this week, the judges overturned decades of official timidity about naming the main cause of climate change. The opinion was long (140 pages) but interspersed among the legalese, the court threw F-bombs aplenty, fingering 'fossil fuels' as the prime culprit 35 times in the summary alone.
It was the first time that the International Court of Justice had ruled on questions about climate change and its advisory opinion was wide-ranging. The judges unanimously agreed that countries must tackle fossil fuels — both burning and extraction — and that failing to curb climate change compromises human rights. The judges concluded that rich, historically high-polluting countries have a particular obligation to act and are responsible for the actions of corporations operating in their territories. And they found that failing to regulate and take meaningful action on climate change creates the legal basis for compensation and other kinds of 'reparations' to nations suffering climate damages.
In one of the F-bombs, the judges very clearly warned that, 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.'
Representatives from the most vulnerable nations were elated. "I didn't expect it to be this good," said Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu, standing on the steps of the Peace Palace in The Hague.
Known across the Pacific as 'Minister Ralph,' Regenvanu has been pushing climate change towards the docket of the World Court for years. But it wasn't his idea.
The idea started in the most improbable manner. It came from a group of students at the University of the South Pacific brainstorming strategies for a class assignment in 2019. The students decided to pursue the project beyond their campus in Fiji, dubbed themselves the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and began contacting all the Pacific Island Nations along with New Zealand and Australia.
They got a few polite brush-offs but no traction until Regenvanu responded, inviting them in for a meeting. After hearing them out, he decided that Vanuatu would support a campaign to get climate change in front of the World Court.
In a landmark ruling, World Court judges unanimously agreed that countries must tackle fossil fuels — both burning and extraction — and that failing to curb climate change compromises human rights.
'We've got to exhaust all possible avenues because we have no choice,' says Regenvanu. Six villages on four of its islands have already been relocated and the government is planning to relocate dozens more. Vanuatu has been fighting on all fronts. It was the first country to begin maneuvering for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has been actively pressing for loss and damage mechanisms and serious carbon cuts by big polluters.
'It's our survival,' Regenvanu says. 'We need to make sure that there's nothing we miss in this fight.'
Over the past six years, the students organized to 'bring the world's biggest problem to the world's highest court.' They galvanized support and transformed their class project into a major global campaign. They mobilized former heads of state, artists and citizens around the world. By the time they got a resolution in front of the UN General Assembly in 2023, the polite brush-offs had turned into active support — the resolution had 18 nations as 'champions' while 132 others joined as co-sponsors.
The UN directed the ICJ to clarify countries' obligations in tackling climate change and the legal consequences they could face if they fail to meet them.
It was the biggest case the ICJ had ever undertaken. Starting last December, the 15 judges heard from almost 100 countries. They considered submissions from especially vulnerable nations, listened to testimony from victims of climate impacts and held sessions with scientists.
Meanwhile, countries like the US, Canada, China and Saudi Arabia argued they had no obligations to reduce carbon pollution beyond their voluntary pledges under the 2015 Paris Agreement and existing UN framework convention on climate change.
The ICJ rejected those arguments and delivered an opinion listing legal obligations that reach well beyond voluntary contributions and put countries on notice that they could be held liable for damages.
The ICJ president, Yūji Iwasawa, said climate change had already caused severe impacts on nature and people: 'These consequences underscore an urgent existential threat,' he said as he presented the opinion. 'The questions posed by the General Assembly represent more than a legal problem. It's an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.'
Will it matter?
The whole notion of international law might sound like a cruel joke these days. But the World Court opinion has certainly energized communities at the frontlines and waterlines. And jurisprudence often builds in sedimentary fashion, solidifying in gradual layers of findings from lower courts and higher courts, international precedents and domestic judgements.
The opinion from the ICJ is its summary of the state of legal obligations, and is non-binding. And, of course, international judges are unable to enforce rulings themselves. But courts are increasingly weighing in on climate obligations. In May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that countries must protect the oceans from acidification. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights determined that a healthy climate is a human right.
Across the world there were at least 226 new climate cases filed in 2024. That brings the global tally to 2,967 cases filed to date, according to a June update from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate.
In one fascinating case this past May, a German court heard from a Peruvian farmer who sued the German utility RWE, arguing its carbon pollution was causing glacial floods in the Andes. The court dismissed the specific case but ruled that companies could be held liable for climate damages in civil proceedings and that 'the polluter must bear the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions.'
The ICJ opinion, and specifically the F-bombs peppered throughout it, 'should send shivers down the spine' of the fossil fuel industry and governments that support it, said David Boyd, an associate professor with the University of British Columbia and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment.
'It's the clearest statement we've had from an international court that we have to get off fossil fuels,' Boyd said.
Although the ICJ advisory opinion is non-binding, it establishes clear guidance about the international obligations and other relevant laws which are binding on countries. The opinion charts legal avenues for countries to sue each other and be held liable for damages caused by fossil fuel pollution. And legal experts say it will serve as a 'crucial tool' for domestic courts.
The journey from a university classroom in Fiji to the highest court in the world shows that the most groundbreaking moments can originate from the most unexpected places. The Pacific Island students started with a class assignment and recast the landscape of international law. Thanks to a group of determined students, the world's legal arsenal just got significantly stronger. The F-bombs have been dropped, the law clarified, the repercussions conveyed.
Whatever happens next in the courtrooms of the world, the movements for climate justice have already been reenergized. "This advisory opinion is a tool for climate justice,' said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'And boy, has the ICJ given us a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice."