The United Nations’ International Court of Justice has issued a landmark advisory opinion declaring climate change an “urgent and existential threat” to humanity, urging countries to take stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In its ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) emphasized that emissions are “unequivocally caused by human activities” and transcend national borders. “Greenhouse gas emissions are not territorially limited,” said Judge Yuji Iwasawa during the public reading of the opinion.
Although the ruling is not legally binding, it holds significant weight. as it could influence future court cases and push countries to strengthen climate-related obligations.
“This could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our time, It goes to the very heart of climate justice,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.
Ruling Process
The advisory opinion was requested by the United Nations General Assembly, which posed two legal questions: What are states’ responsibilities under international law to combat climate change? And what are the legal consequences for countries that fail to protect the global climate system?The ICJ heard arguments in December 2024.
Developed countries, including several major emitters, argued that current frameworks such as the 2015 Paris Agreement which is largely non-binding should form the basis for obligations. In contrast, developing nations and small island states advocated for stricter, legally enforceable measures and financial support from high-emission countries.
Impact of Ruling
According to the UN’s latest Emissions Gap Report, current national policies are projected to result in global warming exceeding 3°C by the end of the century, double the Paris Agreement’s target of 1.5°C. The opinion is expected to bolster the growing wave of climate-related litigation.
As of June 2025, nearly 3,000 lawsuits have been filed in nearly 60 countries. “The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law,” said Fijian law student Vishal Prasad, who helped lobby the South Pacific nation of Vanuatu to bring the case.
Outside the court, climate advocates welcomed the decision with cheers and chants of “What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!”
Observers say the ruling could mark a turning point in global climate accountability, offering both legal leverage and renewed momentum for climate justice efforts.
