In landmark opinion, UN court says climate change an ‘existential threat’

In landmark opinion, UN court says climate change an ‘existential threat’

The United Nations’ highest court has ruled that nations must fulfill their climate obligations and that failing to do so could violate international law, potentially allowing the affected countries to file for reparations in upcoming legal proceedings.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) urged states to take action urgently to combat the “existential threat” of climate change, including implementing global climate agreements, preventing harm to vulnerable populations and ecosystems, in a groundbreaking advisory opinion released on Wednesday at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

According to Yuji Iwasawa, president of the ICJ, greenhouse gas emissions are “unquestionably caused by human activities” and have transnational effects.

Iwasawa argued that failing to take appropriate action to protect the climate system could be a legally wrongdoing action. He referred to the climate crisis as “an existential problem of planetary proportions that threatens all forms of life and our planet’s very health.”

Notably, the court stated that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is a human right. That opens the door to additional legal proceedings, including domestic legal proceedings as well as states’ ICJ requests to hold each other accountable.

Countries themselves are required to take legally binding measures in order to adhere to climate treaties, according to the ICJ’s ruling, which is not binding. However, the ICJ held that industrialized countries have a legal obligation to take the lead in battling climate change because they have a longer history of emissions responsibility.

In keeping with the treaty’s goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1, the judges also affirmed that nations that signed the 2015 Agreement in Paris must ensure their individual national climate plans, according to their national contributions (NDCs), are “progressive” and reflect the “highest possible ambition”. 2 degrees Celsius) . a temperature of 7 degrees Fahrenheit.

Environmental organizations immediately embraced the opinion.   Nafkote Dabi, the head of Oxfam’s climate change policy, stated: “This ruling strengthens national climate commitments everywhere by confirming that nations must reduce emissions in sufficient quantities to safeguard the rights to life, food, health, and a clean environment.

All nations, especially wealthy ones, must now reduce their emissions more quickly and gradually. To help reduce emissions and protect their populations from past and future harm, rich nations must increase their funding of Global South nations. This is international law, not just a wish list. ”

The opinion, according to Danilo Garrido, Greenpeace International’s legal representative, marked the “beginning of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.”

The court’s message is clear: fossil fuel production, consumption, and granting licenses and subsidies could violate international law, he said. Polluters must stop making emissions and be held accountable for the harm they have caused. ”

fundamental two questions

The UN General Assembly requested an advisory opinion in 2023, a non-binding but crucial foundation for international obligations, after years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who feared they might be submerged beneath rising sea waters.

The landmark decision of the ICJ’s 15 judges, who all voted in favor, will have both legal and political weight and likely will determine how much global climate change will occur in the future, including whether polluters should be required to pay for their actions.

The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025 [AFP] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) President Yuji Iwasawa (centre) and its members issue their first advisory opinion on states’ legal responsibilities to combat climate change.

As they sought to bring together various strands of environmental law into a definitive international standard, judges sifted through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and listened to two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ’s biggest-ever case.

Two crucial questions were asked by the UN to address the ICJ, a UN court that hears international disputes. What obligations do states have under international law to carry out to protect the environment from future generations’ greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the effects of the emissions of states, particularly those that are vulnerable on islands?

Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation, spearheaded the investigation and received support from more than 130 nations.

What do climate activists want, supporters of the ruling gathered outside the court to chant it. Climate justice What time do we require it? Now! ”

Agreement in Paris

In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, the United States, the world’s biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, along with other top polluters, told the judges that existing climate treaties like the 2015 Agreement in Paris, which are largely nonbinding, should be the basis for determining their responsibilities.

The Agreement in Paris does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage caused by pollution, although at UN talks in 2022, wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution.

The Agreement in Paris saw more than 190 countries commit efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

However, it hasn’t succeeded in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and the UN warned in a report last year that current climate policies will lead to a global warming of more than 3C (5). By 2100, 4F) above preindustrial levels.

According to legal experts, the decision is a victory for small- and mid-sized states that had requested clarification of their obligations.

“The ICJ rejected arguments by the likes of the US and UK that governments are bound only by climate treaties such as the Agreement in Paris and did not have stronger obligations under international law,” Dabi said.

Source: Aljazeera

234Radio

234Radio is Africa's Premium Internet Radio that seeks to export Africa to the rest of the world.