From Resistance to Victory

ICJ 2025 A Movement’s Victory, A Planet’s Hope

By Atrayee

The Historic Recognition of Climate Justice

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion marks a historic win for climate activists! It officially recognises climate change as an ‘existential threat’ under international law. For decades, campaigners have unapologetically argued that climate change is about justice and survival, not just the environment. The International Court of Justice, ICJ’s decision validates this and gives activists a powerful tool to argue that governments have legal duties—not just political choices—to tackle climate change.

Source: Tengbeh Kamara/Greenpeace.

The Journey to the Courtroom

A record 91 submissions were filed, along with an unprecedented 62 comment submissions—additional or responsive filings that addressed specific arguments raised by other parties.

In 2019 the campaign began with 27 students from the University of the South Pacific, who sought to convince the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum. The PISFCC (Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change) partnered with youth from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe under the banner of the World’s Youth for Climate Justice (WYCJ) in the next year. The government of Vanuatu declared its intention to spearhead the push for an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ seeking an advisory opinion on states’ responsibilities regarding climate change and human rights. Following three rounds of consultations with other states, the resolution was presented to the UN General Assembly with the support of 105 sponsoring countries.

SIX Defining Facets

1. Strengthening Legal Accountability

   The opinion clarifies that states can be held responsible under international law for harmful emissions and failures to act. This raises the bar for accountability beyond political promises, making climate inaction a potential breach of law.

2. Empowering Vulnerable States

   Small island developing states (SIDS) and climate-affected regions gain a stronger legal footing to demand action, reparations, or cooperation from bigger polluting countries that threaten their survival.

3. Recognition of Human Rights Dimensions

   By linking climate change to human rights law, the opinion affirms that states must protect fundamental rights—such as life, health, access to hygienic water and food security—when addressing climate change impacts.

4. Influencing National Courts and Policies

   Even though the opinion is advisory, national and regional courts can rely on it to strengthen climate litigation, shaping stronger domestic laws and policies against harmful emissions.

5. Moral and Normative Authority

   The ICJ’s voice carries global weight. This ruling strengthens climate justice narratives, supports activists’ campaigns, and compels governments to align with international norms.

6. Catalyst for International Cooperation

   The opinion emphasises collective obligations under treaties like the Paris Agreement, pushing states toward cooperation, equity, and shared responsibility in addressing the climate crisis.

1.5°C as a Legal Benchmark

A major victory lies in how the ICJ treats the 1.5°C warming threshold. The Court views, “..the 1.5°C threshold to be the parties’ agreed primary temperature goal for limiting the global average temperature increase under the Paris agreement.” For frontline communities and activists, this is not an aspirational goal but a survival line. By reinforcing 1.5°C as both a scientific necessity and a legal obligation, the Court strengthens arguments against fossil fuel expansion and weak climate targets.

Source: ICJ - www.icj-cij.org/decisions

Inaction as Wrongful Conduct: The New Legal Back-up

A crucial point for activists is the Court’s recognition that wrongful acts include omissions. Subsidising fossil fuels, licensing new oil fields, or failing to regulate private actors are not neutral choices—they are deliberate breaches of legal duty. This aligns with activist claims that delay is complicity. By legally framing inaction as a wrongful act, the ICJ hands campaigners a sharper language to confront governments and corporations that stall climate progress.

Source: ICJ - www.icj-cij.org/decisions

The ICJ affirmed that states can be held responsible for climate change, rejecting claims that greenhouse gas emissions are too diffuse to attribute to localised pollution. It emphasised that responsibility arises not only from direct emissions but also from omissions and policies that actively enable fossil-fuel use, thereby creating a clear legal link between state conduct and global climate harm.

The Legal Weapon for Domestic Courts

The ICJ provides legal authority that can be used in domestic courts, international negotiations, and public campaigns. By setting clear standards of responsibility and obligation, the opinion becomes a compass for the global climate movement.

The purpose of an ICJ advisory opinion is to clarify the meaning, scope, or application of international law in a situation. Unlike contentious cases, advisory opinions are non-binding—they don’t settle disputes or impose obligations—but they carry strong authority and shape how states and courts interpret the law.

ICJ judges deliver their advisory opinion on obligations of states in respect of climate change at the Peace Palace. Source: ICJ

The TWO core Questions

Question (a): Obligations of States

What must countries do, under international law, to protect the climate from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, not only for people alive today but also for future generations?

Question (b): Legal Consequences of Harm

If countries fail to meet their obligations and, through their actions or inactions, cause serious harm to the climate and environment, what legal consequences should they face?

Legal Tools for the Vulnerable Regions

A: African communities

Countries like Somalia, Sudan, and the Sahel states face escalating droughts, desertification, and conflict over scarce resources—threats that compound already fragile governance structures. The recognition gives African communities a legal foothold to demand both resilience and justice.

B: South Asia

The world’s most climate-vulnerable nations, including Bangladesh, Nepal, and low-lying coastal India. Here, floods, cyclones, and glacial melt threaten millions, often displacing the poorest and marginalised. The ICJ opinion strengthens the hand of local movements fighting against unchecked coal expansion in India or inadequate adaptation in Bangladesh, making it possible to argue that these failures are not just policy gaps but internationally wrongful acts.

C: Latin America

The Amazon rainforest—an essential carbon sink—is threatened by deforestation, extractive industries, and militarisation of indigenous lands. Communities in Brazil, Peru, and Colombia can now frame deforestation and state negligence as internationally wrongful acts undermining global climate stability. In the Arctic, melting ice accelerates sea-level rise and devastates indigenous livelihoods; the Court’s recognition of intergenerational rights strengthens Arctic peoples’ claims for urgent protection and adaptation. These regions, though diverse, share a common struggle: their survival depends on holding powerful states and corporations accountable under international law.

Greenpeace Brazil activists and Indigenous leaderships hold a peaceful action at the gates of a Hyundai plant in Itatiaia, Rio de Janeiro state. Source: Greenpeace

D: Pacific Island Nations vs. High-Emitting States

For decades, small island states like Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands have lost land, freshwater sources, and cultural heritage due to rising seas caused by industrial emissions of developed nations. Under the new legal framing, omissions by high-emitting states to reduce emissions could be seen as wrongful acts, making reparations (financial support, relocation aid, or adaptation funds) legally justifiable.

Response from Climate Justice Community

Vishal Prashad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change embraced the advisory opinion stating, “For small island states, communities in the Pacific, young people and future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect what we hold dear and love. I am convinced now that there is hope and that we can return to our communities saying the same. Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this.”

The ICJ opinion is a victory because it validates activists’ claims, strengthens legal tools, and reframes climate change as a matter of duty, not discretion. By recognizing 1.5°C as binding, acknowledging omissions as wrongful, and highlighting the vulnerability of affected communities, the Court empowers movements worldwide. While not enforceable by itself, its normative weight gives climate activists unprecedented leverage to hold States accountable and to push for a just, sustainable future.

Note:

You can download the full text of the advisory opinion from the ICJ website in pdf format.