World’s Highest Court Tells Countries to Halt Emissions Faster and Protect the Climate
For immediate release
The Hague – The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest judicial body, delivered a historic advisory opinion on States’ legal obligations to address climate change. This landmark ruling provides more clarity on the duties of governments and major polluters – including fossil fuel producers – to prevent, mitigate, and remedy climate harms that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities worldwide. Initiated by Pacific youth defending their culture, land, and future, the ruling could become a turning point in international law.
The ICJ was asked by the United Nations General Assembly to answer two critical questions: (1) What are States’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system, including from fossil fuel–driven greenhouse gas emissions, for current and future generations? (2) What legal consequences arise when States, through action or inaction, contribute significantly to climate harm, particularly for small island nations and those least responsible for the crisis?
The advisory opinion comes as global pressure mounts on fossil fuel producers, with courts worldwide increasingly citing the unequivocal scientific evidence that a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels is essential to meet climate goals and protect human rights. Recent rulings have acknowledged that States and corporations must transition away from coal, oil, and gas and States have binding obligations to prevent, mitigate, and remedy the disproportionate impacts of climate change on those least responsible.
The ICJ affirms that the 1.5 °C global temperature rise threshold is not just aspirational, but an internationally agreed objective that underpins state obligations under the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC.
It linked this obligation to the duty of due diligence under customary international law. States must use “all means at their disposal,” based on the best available science, to prevent dangerous climate change. Further, the Court stated that preparation and implementation of NDCs “must satisfy a certain standard of due diligence under the Paris Agreement (…) representing highest possible ambition in order to realise the main objective of the agreement, when taken together, be capable of realizing the objectives of the Agreement which is set out in Article 2.”
“International cooperation is indispensable in the field of climate change.” said Judge Iwasawa Yuji, president of the Court.
Parties are obliged to act in compliance with due diligence duty building on science and COP decisions. According to the Court ruling, granting fossil fuel licenses or subsidies, or failing to regulate fossil fuel consumption, may constitute an internationally wrongful act attributable to a State.
The Court’s answers today should empower States to:
- Accelerate the fossil fuel phase-out by strengthening legal and political pressure on governments.
- Shape corporate responsibility, as Big Oil faces a rising tide of climate litigation to hold these companies accountable for their pollution. The ICJ ruling makes it clear that polluters – like Big Oil – must pay for the damages they’ve caused. It provides a significant boost to existing climate cases, and offers a solid foundation in international law for future claims.
- Support climate finance and debt cancellation for vulnerable nations, reinforcing the principle that those most responsible must bear the greatest burden
- Advance intergenerational justice, affirming that States must act now to protect future generations.
- Fulfill their obligations, with wealthy States going first in financing the transition and phasing out fossil fuels. OCI analysis shows wealthy countries are projected to account for nearly 70% of CO₂ emissions from new oil and gas expansion. They must change course. Separate OCI research shows rich countries can also raise the public funds needed to meet their climate finance obligations – through ending their fossil fuel handouts, making polluters pay and changing unfair financial rules, including through supporting debt cancellation.
Maria Alejandra Vesga Correa, Legal Officer at Oil Change International, said:
“Today’s ruling was a giant leap forward in the fight for climate justice. This unanimous Advisory Opinion is a binding interpretation of what existing legal obligations require countries and companies to do in relation to climate change. It is about historical responsibility, reparation, securing climate financing and holding major emitters accountable.
“The Court identifies key legal norms underpinning States’ binding obligations under international law. It elevates the 1.5 °C global temperature rise threshold from a political aspiration to a binding obligation informed by the science. Science is equally clear that fossil fuels are the primary drivers of the climate crisis. In light of this, States should take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions, including through addressing fossil fuel production, consumption, the granting of fossil exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, while upholding their duty to protect those suffering the worst impacts of a crisis they did not cause.”
Notes:
- ‘Big Oil in Court’: Analysis of the rising tide of climate litigation against fossil fuel companies
- ‘Planet Wreckers’: Analysis shows that just four Global North countries – the United States, Canada, Norway, and Australia – are collectively responsible for nearly 70% of projected CO2 pollution from new oil and gas expansion from 2025 to 2035. If these four countries halted their planned new oil and gas extraction, 32 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon pollution would be kept in the ground. This is equivalent to three times the annual emissions of all the world’s coal power plants combined.
- ‘We Can Pay for It’: Analysis showing wealthy countries have the means to mobilise over 5 trillion dollars every year for climate action by ending their fossil fuel subsidies, making polluters pay and changing unfair global financial rules, to support Global South countries to transition to renewable energy and support other public goods.
- ‘Private Fantasies’: Analysis showing why private finance isn’t delivering an energy transition and making the case for public sector leadership. Shows how governments’ dominant “private-sector first” approach to financing a just energy transition is prolonging the fossil fuel era.
Sources: