Historical pronunciation

UN Court of Justice: 'States have an obligation to combat climate change'

"Climate change treaties lay down strict obligations; a state's failure to take appropriate measures may constitute an international tort." The opinion is not binding, but will have an impact on future lawsuits, including claims for compensation. Victory for the small Pacific island nation Vanuatu

by Gianluca Di Donfrancesco

23 July 2025

Il presidente della Corte internazionale di giustizia, Yuji Iwasawa, e i suoi membri emettono il primo parere consultivo sugli obblighi legali degli Stati sul cambiamento climatico (AFP)

3' min read

3' min read

It is a historic pronouncement, the one issued on 23 July by the UN International Court of Justice: states, the Hague judges said, must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by working together to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Above all, said the Court's president, Yuji Iwasawa, "climate change treaties establish strict obligations" and failure to comply with them may constitute a violation of international law.

Rights and duties

According to the Court's unanimously adopted opinion, 'the failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, including through the production of fossil fuels, the consumption of fossil fuels, the licensing of fossil fuel exploration, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally wrongful act'. And in relation to damage caused by climate change, 'in the event that restitution proves materially impossible, responsible states have an obligation to compensate'. According to international standards, 'the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential to the enjoyment of other rights'.

National climate plans to combat global warming must therefore rise to the challenge and collectively meet the standards to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which commits to keep the increase in global average temperatures at the end of the century well below 2 degrees Celsius and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees, compared to the pre-industrial period.

The goals of the Paris Agreement actually already seem out of reach, with average global temperatures heading for a rise of more than three degrees, according to various simulations, including that of the UN Emissions Gap Report.

Climatic Justice

The Hague Court's 15-judge ruling runs to over 500 pages. It is not binding, but will weigh on future climate lawsuits. "This is the beginning of a new era of global climate responsibility," said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace.

The Court does not have the power to enforce its decision and the US is among the countries that do not automatically recognise its authority. By Donald Trump's decision, the US, the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide after China, has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement (as it did during the Republican president's first term).

The case was raised by a small Pacific island nation, Vanuatu, which is in danger of disappearing due to rising sea levels, and was supported by more than 130 countries. The ruling came at the urging of the UN General Assembly, which asked the judges two questions in 2023: what states must do under international law to protect the climate and environment from man-made greenhouse gas emissions; what are the legal consequences for governments when their actions, or inaction, significantly damage the climate and environment.

During the two-week hearing last December, the countries of the Global North argued that the current climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for determining responsibility.

Developing nations and small island states, on the other hand, demanded stronger, in some cases legally binding, measures to limit emissions and for the largest greenhouse gas producers to provide financial aid.

Climate disputes have intensified in recent years: almost 3,000 cases have been filed in 60 countries, according to June figures from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London. At least 226 new cases were filed last year alone. So far the results have been mixed.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that states have a legal duty not only to prevent environmental damage but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that states must better protect their populations from the consequences of climate change.

Gianluca Di Donfrancescoredattore
- LinkedIn
- Email
Luogo: Milano
Lingue parlate: Inglese
Argomenti: Germania, Fmi, Banca mondiale, economia e commercio internazionale, cambiamento climatico, e transizione verde
Scheda autore
Trust project