Authored By: Saif Alam
National Law University, Visakhapatnam
ABSTRACT
The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) recent advisory opinion marks a turning point in global climate governance by authoritatively interpreting states’ legal duties with the context of ‘fight for climate’. This paper examines the court decision’s significant effects, particularly regarding states’ legal responsibilities to safeguard the climate system, as it transitions from non-binding recommendations to useful incentives for action. The advisory opinion emphasizes that states cannot ignore their responsibilities to pursue robust climate goals and protect vulnerable communities, which are rooted in various international treaties. The ICJ also reaffirms the legally binding nature of commitments of developed countries such as providing financial and technological help to developing countries. This paper also analyses the court’s rejection of arguments minimizing climate duties, which empowers smaller states and improves global accountability. Ultimately, the paper argues that ICJ’s advisory opinion strengthens international pressure, opening the door from advisory declarations to concrete legal enforcement of state climate duties.
KEYWORDS: ICJ, Advisory Opinion, Climate Justice, COP, Obligations, Non-Binding, States, Mitigation.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most significant issues of our day has been identified as climate change.[1] Plenty of rights associated with humanity, most notably the liberty to exist, are already being impacted by the changing climate on a global scale.[2] States have long recognized that their work and tries are insufficient to stop the negative consequences in the fight for climate. International Court of Justice (ICJ), popularly called as the World Court, issued a historic decision that gives and implies duties over regions, when we refer to the fight for climate preservation, in light of the existential threat posed by this phenomenon.[3] Technically, these advisory opinions are not legally binding.[4] The Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law sent a letter of request for such type of decision for the reason of a number of initiatives by states that were dissatisfied with the glacial pace of climate change negotiations.[5] Although it is still in its infancy, climate litigation and the ICJ’s role could impact treaty negotiations and state practices regarding the war on warming temperatures and human life, raise the consciousness of the conflict and its health effects, and exert pressure on the government to pass or uphold national laws protecting the natural world and rights of people.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research is based on a comparative method to analyse different notions of climate challenges in different countries and its effects over the globe. It also contains a multifaceted methodology with secondary sources that uses news articles, various websites and several journal articles for the research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The growing scholarship on climate justice reveals how judicial bodies, particularly the World’s Court, are having a greater impact on states’ pledges for addressing the war for climate. Classical works like Philippe Sands’ Principles of International Environmental Law[6] explains a thorough framework for comprehending states’ legal obligations under multilateral environmental agreements as it highlights the ideas that support recent ICJ advisory opinions on climate change, including due diligence, prevention, and common but differentiated responsibilities. Similarly, Dinah Shelton’s Environmental Protection and Human Rights [7]discusses how advisory opinions have broadened the scope of state responsibility to protect the rights of vulnerable populations in the climate crisis by placing state duties within both environmental and human rights law. These literatures analyse the shift from advisory declarations to legally binding obligations influencing global climate action.
URGENT CALL FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE ACTION
During the 26th edition of Conference of Parties, in November 2021, the UN General Assembly convened nations at a pivotal moment to mobilize and address, through action, green problems all over the world and to call for an immediate action to prevent the wrong things happening to nature, preserve life of humans, and let the heat lower than 1.5°C.[8] Environmental degradation and global warming are already having a negative impact on people’s health for decades as global temperature increases.[9] A lower global warming than the average of world’s heat and ongoing biodiversity disappearance pose a threat to human health that cannot be undone.[10] The number of deaths from heat-related causes among adults over 65 has risen by more than 50% in the last 20 years. The process of going to the end paths of our ecosystem, which is pushing the blue planet to a hell-like place, increases with temperature increases above 1.5°C.[11]
THE DUTY OF STATES
The World’s Court and other international courts, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), have unanimously decided that states have a legal duty to protect the climate system because it is a matter that is beyond politics and that states cannot disregard their responsibilities.[12] The court has examined all environmental accords, including the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and the Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Agreement, for instance, calls for “continuing attempts” to keep the increase in world median degrees “significantly beneath 2 degrees Celsius,” and to keep it to 1.5 degrees Celsius over historical rates.”[13] In the same way, the Paris Agreement mandates that parties draft their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which specify the climate-related measures they intend to implement.[14] The court, however, refused to nod its head and declared that NDCs did not impose any legally binding duties on states. Instead, it mandated that states make sure their NDCs reflected their “highest possible” ambition and take proactive steps to promote climate justice.[15]
GLOBAL AMBITIONS FALL SHORT
Goals for coming 5th year are among the encouraging targets that numerous states, monetary organizations, and many businesses are setting in order to reach almost negligible emissions.[16] By that year, majority states aspire to preserve at least 20-30% of the globe’s greens and blue.[17] These assurances are insufficient because setting goals is simple, but achieving them is challenging.[18] Coordinated climate action is made more difficult by structural disparities and geopolitical tensions, which frequently lead to key emitters’ contributions being insufficient. Given that investments in fossil fuels continue alongside green initiatives, the finance sector’s role in facilitating or impeding this transition is crucial. Furthermore, vulnerable populations are occasionally ignored by climate policies, which exacerbates social and environmental injustices. Reduction commitments must take into consideration each nation’s historical and cumulative emissions as well as its present emissions and response capabilities in order to ensure that everyone contributes fairly to the global effort.[19] Because of this lack of action, temperature increases are probably going to be much higher than 2°C.[20] However, based on recent conference of parties (COP) decisions and current scientific consensus, the judge held in the decision that governments should aim for an appropriate limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius.[21]
NAVIGATING DIVIDES AND CLIMATE JUSTICE
Arbitration is a remote solution to the global warming crisis that developing countries are certainly facing, given the growing number of impoverished people, the lack of health facilities, the lack of education and literacy, and the shortage of accessibility to electricity that continue to be major issues for the populace.[22] Thus far, international courts have emerged as crucial platforms for interpreting climate obligations and establishing norms that can have an impact on national and regional courts. With the court emphasizing the value of the concept of common but varied roles, the advisory opinion also has important ramifications for climate justice and the Global North-South divide.[23] The criteria used to evaluate nations’ climate action would vary depending on a number of factors.[24] The varied factors include current national conditions, historical ejections, and all round developments. Developed nations are required, according to court, to transfer technology and financial resources to developing nations for mitigation and this duty must be interpreted in light of the overall temperature goal and subsequent agreements, even though the Paris Agreement does not specify a specific level of financial support.[25]
THE ROLE TOWARDS HUMAN RIGHTS
The use of civil freedom legislation within the battle against climate change is one obvious instance of basic liberties.[26] Most of the rights that have been brought before both courts have been related to health, participation in cultural life, privacy and family life, livelihood, property, and life.[27] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) pointed out, through advisory opinion, that when nations take climate action, they must consider the detrimental effects of climate change on a number of human rights, especially the rights of particularly vulnerable groups.[28] It also implies that nations must make sure that human rights are upheld and that a fair transition is accomplished while pursuing a green transition.[29] This decision is probably going to support the ongoing strategic litigation surrounding climate change in a number of nations, where the governments’ climate actions have been contested as inadequate and human rights violations.[30] For example, Ridhima Pandey case.[31] According to the UNFCCC Secretariat, “human health encompasses physical, mental, and social well-being, and its non-economic value arises from its contribution to wellbeing.”[32]
ACCOUNTABILITY OF STATE
The UNFCCC still not nodded to put in utility its dispute resolution procedures, which can help to make governments realize how they are going against the act for violations of the treaty.[33] Furthermore, the UNFCCC did not initially have a specific mechanism for compensating for the harm caused by the alterations in the features of climate but it was altered the very moment when Global South’s Tiny countries’ States pushed for the inclusion of “loss and damage” in negotiations. Because it is challenging to establish causation and attribution, the court rejected the claim made in the advisory opinion that nations cannot be held individually accountable for breaking these obligations.[34] It made the point that, taking into account both past and present emissions, it is scientifically feasible to calculate the overall contribution of each state to global emissions.[35] From various environmental treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention, and uncodified customary international law, the court also identified state’s accountability to manage this war for the preservation of climate, including a role of due diligence, a role to prevent significant harm to the climate system, and the duty to cooperate in climate protection.[36]
SUGGESTION
States must immediately fortify their legal systems and environmental regulations to fulfill their climate commitments to operationalize the ICJ advisory opinion. Governments need to fundamentally transform the structure of our economies, societies, and way of life to meet the listed goals above.[37] Developing metros, transportation systems, eatable generation and its distribution, life centers, etc. areas require the involvement of governments. Thus, international coming-together strategy is needed. Enhancing accountability, transparency, and oversight of state actions is essential to ensuring adherence to climate pledges. International platforms must also address the North-South divide, advance climate justice, and enable vulnerable nations to participate fairly. A good amount of money should be invested and thus, these investments will yield significant economic and health benefits.[38] These include better housing and nutrition, more physical activity, lower air pollution, and high-quality jobs.[39] The health benefits of improved air quality alone would easily outweigh the costs of reducing emissions worldwide.[40] Funding educational and public awareness initiatives would enable people to support sustainable policies. The social and economic determinants of health will also be improved by these actions.[41] A comprehensive, multidisciplinary strategy combining law, policy, finance, and human rights is ultimately needed to convert the ICJ’s advisory opinions into legally binding commitments, promoting a fair and efficient global climate response.
CONCLUSION
The recent decision that has been taken by the World Court marks a transitionary and important change in global climate governance by turning non-binding recommendations into strong inducements for state action. It is significant that the UN General Assembly was pushed by the small island states for this advisory opinion, who face an existential threat from climate change.[42] They have won a major legal battle that will help them in their attempts to hold some developed countries responsible and encourage more aggressive action.[43] This paper emphasizes how states now have more legal obligations to protect vulnerable groups, pursue aggressive climate goals, and adhere to climate justice principles. The ICJ’s advisory opinion strengthens international pressure and legal clarity despite obstacles like the North-South divide and the difficulty of enforcing accountability. The advisory opinion urges all states to increase their commitments to reflect scientific consensus on temperature thresholds, even as it recognizes the legally binding nature of developed states’ duties to offer developing nations financial and technological support. Global South countries, especially India, can use this decision to collectively pressure developed countries to better fulfill their pledges to transfer technology and provide climate finance, while opposing policies that disproportionately affect developing nations.[44] By maintaining frameworks rooted in global agreements and civil rights law, the ICJ is hastening the shift from advisory declarations to legally binding climate obligations. This development is necessary to achieve meaningful global climate mitigation, adaptation, and justice in the midst of the growing climate emergency.
REFERENCE(S):
[1] ‘Address to High-Level Event on Climate Change’ (United Nations, 24 September 2007), accessed 24 Sept 2025.
[2] Julie Fraser and Laura Henderson, ‘The human rights turn in climate change litigation and responsibilities of legal professionals’ (2022) 40(1) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, accessed 24 September 2025.
[3] Prabhash Ranjan and Rahul Mohanty, ‘World court’s advisory opinion boosts climate action’ The Hindu (08 August 2025), accessed 24 September 2025.
[4] Id.
[5] Cecilia Engler, ‘Strengthening the Legal Framework for the Ocean-Climate Nexus? A Commentary on the ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law’ (2025) Ocean Yearbook Online, accessed 24 September 2025.
[6] Philippe Sands and Jacqueline Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2018).
[7] Dinah Shelton and Donald K. Anton, Environmental Protection and Human Rights (1st edn, Cambridge University Press 2009).
[8] Laurie Laybourn-Langton and Richard Smith, Call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health (2021) 114(4) The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, accessed 24 September 2025.
[9] In support of a #Health Recovery (healthy recovery, 26 May 2020), accessed 24 September 2025.
[10] IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5 ºC (2018).
[11] Langton (n 8).
[12] Ranjan (n 3).
[13] ‘The Paris Agreement’ (UNFCCC, 12 December 2015), accessed 24 September 2025.
[14] Ranjan (n 3).
[15] Id.
[16] Langton (n 8).
[17] ‘The High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People’ (High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People), accessed 24 September 2025.
[18] Langton (n 8).
[19] Id.
[20] ‘CAT net zero target evaluations’ (Climate Action Tracker) accessed on 24 September 2025.
[21] Ranjan (n 3).
[22] ‘10-hour rainfall: Businesses grounded, house collapses as flood overtakes Lagos’ Punch Newspaper (04 July 2024) accessed 24 September 2025.
[23] Ranjan (n 3).
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Fraser (n 2).
[27] Id.
[28] Ranjan (n 3).
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Ridhima Pandey vs Union Of India (2025) Civil Appeal No 388/2021.
[32] ‘Non-economic losses in the context of the work programme on loss and damage’ UNFCCC, accessed 24 September 2025.
[33] UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, United Nations (1992).
[34] Ranjan (n 3).
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Langton (n 8).
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Prof Anil Markandya et al.,‘Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study’ (2018) 2(3) The Lancet Planetary Health, accessed 24 September 2025.
[41] Lauren Paremoer et al., ‘Covid-19 pandemic and the social determinants of health’ (2021) Covid-19: The Road to Equity and Solidarity, accessed 24 September 2025.
[42] Ranjan (n 3).
[43] Id.
[44] Id.
