In a landmark opinion delivered this week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that countries can sue one another over climate change, including for historic emissions, marking a pivotal shift in the legal landscape of environmental accountability. Though non-binding, the decision is expected to significantly strengthen the legal standing of climate-vulnerable nations in their pursuit of justice from high-emitting states.
The case, originally sparked by a group of Pacific Island law students in 2019, culminated in a ruling seen as a moral and symbolic victory for developing nations grappling with the devastating effects of climate change. The ICJ stated that governments not only have obligations under the Paris Agreement but are also bound by broader principles of international law to protect the climate system—even if they are not parties to the accord.
For many Pacific Island communities like Vanuatu, the decision validates decades of suffering. The court recognised the rights of such nations to seek compensation for climate-related damages, whether due to infrastructure loss or extreme weather events, though it acknowledged that proving causality on a case-by-case basis could be challenging.
The ICJ went further by addressing the responsibilities of governments toward companies within their jurisdiction. It ruled that actions such as subsidising fossil fuel industries or issuing new oil and gas licenses could breach a state’s international obligations. This expands the accountability net beyond public policy to corporate regulation.
Developing countries are now preparing legal strategies to claim damages in domestic and international courts, citing the ICJ opinion. While powerful emitters like the US and China are not bound by ICJ jurisdiction, legal experts say cases could still be filed in national courts where those countries are accountable.
Although the ICJ has no enforcement mechanism, its opinions carry significant diplomatic weight. Past advisory rulings have influenced international relations, including the UK’s agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
Legal experts see this as a watershed moment. “This decision affirms that frontline communities have the right to seek remedies,” said Joie Chowdhury of the Centre for International Environmental Law. But the challenge ahead lies in enforcement—and in ensuring that legal recognition translates into real-world accountability.
In a geopolitical world where legal compliance is often voluntary, the ICJ’s ruling offers vulnerable nations a tool—but not a guarantee—in the fight for climate justice.
Source: BBC
SMS
