On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a unanimous advisory opinion, declaring that countries have a legal obligation under international law to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate system. Initiated by Vanuatu and supported by over 130 nations, this landmark ruling, though non-binding, carries significant legal and moral weight, potentially reshaping global climate action and accountability. This article examines the ruling’s key aspects, its implications for climate justice, and its relevance for competitive exams like UPSC.
Key Points:
- ICJ ruling on July 23, 2025, mandates countries to reduce GHG emissions under international law.
- Advisory opinion requested by UN General Assembly in March 2023, led by Vanuatu.
- Non-binding but influential for climate litigation and policy globally.
Background: Vanuatu’s Push for Climate Justice
The case originated from a campaign by Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) in 2019, urging Vanuatu to seek clarity on states’ climate obligations. In March 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/77/L.58 by consensus, asking the ICJ to address two questions:
- What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system and environment from anthropogenic GHG emissions for present and future generations?
- What are the legal consequences for states causing significant climate harm, particularly to vulnerable nations like small island states?
Key Points:
- Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation of 300,000, led the initiative with 130+ countries’ support.
- Resolution backed by scientific consensus from IPCC reports on human-driven climate change.
- Case saw unprecedented participation with 91 written statements and two weeks of hearings in December 2024.
ICJ’s Key Findings: Legal Obligations and Accountability
The ICJ’s 133-page opinion, delivered by President Judge Yuji Iwasawa, establishes that climate change is an “urgent and existential threat” and outlines clear legal responsibilities for states.
Core Rulings:
- Legal Obligation to Act: States are bound by international law, including the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement, UNCLOS, and human rights treaties, to prevent, reduce, and control GHG emissions with due diligence.
- Paris Agreement Commitment: States must prepare and implement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
- Regulation of Fossil Fuels: Failure to regulate fossil fuel production, consumption, or subsidies constitutes an “internationally wrongful act.”
- Human Rights Link: Climate inaction impairs rights to life, health, and adequate living standards, particularly for women, children, and Indigenous peoples.
- Marine Environment: GHG emissions are pollution under UNCLOS, obligating states to protect oceans from climate impacts like acidification.
- Liability for Harm: States causing significant climate harm must cease wrongful conduct, offer non-repetition guarantees, and provide reparations, including compensation, to affected nations, especially small island states.
Key Points:
- Climate action is a legally binding commitment, not just a policy choice.
- States must regulate private actors (e.g., fossil fuel companies) to prevent climate harm.
- Ruling emphasizes intergenerational justice, protecting future generations.
Implications for Climate Justice and Policy
While non-binding, the ICJ’s opinion carries “great legal weight and moral authority,” influencing global climate litigation, negotiations, and policy.
Key Impacts:
- Strengthening Climate Litigation: The ruling provides a legal framework for vulnerable nations, like Vanuatu, to pursue compensation from major polluters (e.g., USA, China, Australia) in domestic or international courts.
- Policy Reinforcement: It pressures states to strengthen NDCs, reduce fossil fuel reliance, and align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.
- Support for Vulnerable Nations: Small island states and developing countries, contributing less than 3% of global emissions, gain leverage to demand climate finance and reparations.
- Global Climate Negotiations: The opinion could shape COP discussions and the Loss and Damage Fund, pushing rich nations to increase funding for climate adaptation and mitigation.
- Human Rights Integration: Links climate inaction to human rights violations, encouraging rights-based climate lawsuits globally.
Key Points:
- Empowers vulnerable nations to hold polluters accountable.
- Reinforces the need for stronger climate policies and finance.
- Could catalyze domestic lawsuits and global cooperation.
Relevance for UPSC Aspirants
The ICJ ruling is a critical topic for UPSC Prelims and Mains due to its implications for international relations, environmental law, and global governance.
Why It Matters:
- Prelims: Expect questions on the ICJ’s role, climate treaties (UNFCCC, Paris Agreement), and key terms like “advisory opinion” or “climate justice.”
- Mains: Relevant for GS Paper II (International Relations, International Organizations) and GS Paper III (Environment, Climate Change). Candidates should analyze:
- The role of international law in climate action.
- Implications for India as a developing nation and major emitter.
- India’s climate commitments (e.g., net-zero by 2070, 500 GW renewable energy by 2030).
- Essay: Potential topics include climate justice, the role of international courts, or balancing development and environmental obligations.
Key Points:
- Study ICJ’s structure, advisory vs. contentious cases, and its role in the UN system.
- Understand India’s stance on climate finance and loss and damage.
- Link ruling to NEP 2020’s focus on sustainability and global cooperation.
India’s Context and Role
As the world’s third-largest GHG emitter, India faces both opportunities and challenges from the ICJ ruling. It can leverage the opinion to demand climate finance from developed nations while strengthening its own climate policies.
Key Points:
- India co-sponsored the UNGA resolution, aligning with vulnerable nations.
- India’s NDCs aim for 50% renewable energy by 2030 and net-zero by 2070.
- The ruling may pressure India to regulate coal and fossil fuel subsidies while seeking reparations for climate impacts like floods and heatwaves.
Conclusion: A Catalyst for Global Climate Action
The ICJ’s July 2025 advisory opinion marks a historic step toward climate justice, affirming that states have a legal duty to curb GHG emissions and compensate for climate harm. Led by Vanuatu, this ruling empowers vulnerable nations and future generations, offering a legal framework to hold polluters accountable. For UPSC aspirants, understanding its legal, environmental, and geopolitical implications is crucial. Stay updated via icj-cij.org and un.org for further developments.
Key Points:
- ICJ ruling strengthens climate justice for small island states and developing nations.
- Non-binding but sets a precedent for litigation and policy reform.
- Essential for UPSC: Study ICJ’s role, climate treaties, and India’s position.
