In a significant development in international environmental law, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a unanimous advisory opinion stating that countries have binding legal obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Delivered on July 23 in The Hague, the opinion affirms that nations failing to act in accordance with these obligations—such as cutting emissions, regulating polluting industries, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies—may be held responsible for causing climate-related harm and could be required to compensate affected states.
Presiding Judge Yuji Iwasawa described climate change as an “urgent and existential threat” and underscored that emissions are caused by human activities that are not limited by borders. He emphasized that countries must cooperate to achieve measurable reductions in climate pollution and that failing to meet treaty obligations constitutes a breach of international law.
Read also: Central African Pipeline System gains momentum in push for regional energy integration
The ruling clarified that legal accountability extends not only to governments’ direct emissions but also to emissions from fossil fuel production and commercial activities within their jurisdiction. The court stated that continued support for fossil fuel extraction, through subsidies, licenses, or lack of regulation, could result in full reparations to countries harmed by climate impacts, such as rising sea levels, heatwaves, or extreme weather events. The court also affirmed that it is scientifically possible to estimate each country’s share of global emissions, considering both historical and current contributions.
Governments from climate-vulnerable regions welcomed the ruling. Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu remarked, “I didn’t expect it to be this good,” while Vishal Prasad, a Pacific Island law student who played a key role in bringing the case forward, called the opinion “a tool for climate justice” and a vital step forward for affected communities.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said the opinion confirmed that the goals of the Paris Agreement must form the basis for all national climate policies. He described the decision as a major step forward for those seeking to hold major emitters accountable.
The court also reaffirmed that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is integral to the enjoyment of other human rights. It emphasized that governments are expected to adopt national climate targets that reflect their highest possible ambition, aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. This includes efforts to reduce not just domestic emissions but also the emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports.
Legal experts interpreted the opinion as a new phase in international climate law. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, called it the beginning of a global shift toward legal accountability. Harj Narulla, counsel for the Solomon Islands, said the decision provides a framework for reparations, including restoration of ecosystems, rebuilding damaged infrastructure, and financial compensation.
The ruling also has implications for Australia, one of the world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels. According to the Climate Council, the decision challenges the position that countries are not responsible for the emissions associated with exported coal, oil, or gas. Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Council, noted that the court has made clear that nations must consider the total impact of their fossil fuel industries. She emphasized that continuing to expand fossil fuel production could violate international obligations and expose countries to legal liability for climate harm.
The Council further highlighted that Australia’s national climate commitments must align with the 1.5°C threshold and be accompanied by enforceable policies. The court made clear that countries must put forward national contributions that reflect their highest possible ambition and take steps to address both domestic and exported emissions.
For Africa, which contributes a small fraction of global emissions but faces severe climate risks, the ICJ opinion offers a legal basis to pursue greater accountability. It may also strengthen African countries’ demands for more equitable climate financing, adaptation support, and enforcement of historical responsibilities by high-emitting nations.
Though the ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding, it is expected to shape climate litigation and policymaking around the world. As of mid-2025, nearly 3,000 climate-related legal cases have been filed in 60 countries, many seeking to enforce environmental commitments through the courts.
With the COP30 summit approaching in Brazil, the ICJ’s ruling will likely influence the direction of international negotiations. For African governments and institutions, it provides an opportunity to assert stronger legal and diplomatic claims for climate responsibility, justice, and support—grounded not in political appeals alone, but in international law.
Read also: Africa set to host landmark Carbon Markets Summit as it eyes climate finance breakthrough
