ICJ’s Climate Ruling to Pay for Historical Emissions
Context: On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark advisory opinion reaffirming that states have legal obligations to mitigate climate change.
More on News
- The ruling states that countries must reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and support vulnerable nations, especially those facing climate-induced losses.
- While celebrated in some quarters as a legal milestone, others remain sceptical about its practical implications.
Is the ICJ Ruling Enforceable Under International Law?
- Not Enforceable: The ICJ’s opinion, while legally significant, does not carry the weight of enforceable international law.
- Complex Issue: Scientific attribution — linking a nation’s failure to reduce emissions with disasters like floods or temperature rise — remains complex, especially when global warming is still around 1.5°C.
- Many of the extreme events being observed today are seen as amplified by climate change, rather than caused exclusively by it.
- Sovereignty: No major nation — whether the U.S., China or India — is likely to overhaul its energy systems based on an international court’s recommendation.
- The U.S. continues to subsidise fossil fuels and has previously withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, undermining any consistent legal accountability.
- Even if the ICJ were to issue an enforceable order, powerful states could block enforcement through the UN Security Council.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
It is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. It was established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter and began its activities in 1946. The ICJ has a dual mandate: Settling legal disputes between states [Only sovereign states (not individuals, companies, or organisations) may be parties to disputes before the ICJ. The Court’s jurisdiction depends on the consent of the parties involved, meaning no state can be brought before the ICJ unless it has agreed to the court’s jurisdiction in that matter.] and Providing advisory opinions [The ICJ can give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised United Nations organs and specialised agencies. These opinions, while influential in clarifying international law, are not binding.] The Court is composed of 15 judges, each from a different country, elected to nine-year terms by both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. Judges may be re-elected, and no two judges may be nationals of the same state at the same time. Judges act independently and do not represent their governments. The ICJ settles a variety of international legal disputes, including those concerning territorial boundaries, diplomatic relations, asylum, and economic rights. Its decisions are final and binding for the states involved, with no mechanism for appeal.
What Does the U.S. Regulatory Rollback Mean for Climate Responsibility?
- With the rollback of U.S. carbon regulations and the weakening of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, the U.S. has reduced its climate ambitions.
- Experts are sceptical about the Loss and Damage Fund, which aims to financially compensate vulnerable countries.
Can Domestic Courts Use the ICJ Ruling for Local Climate Action?
- Domestic courts in treaty-bound nations can use the ICJ opinion as legal grounding to hold their governments accountable.
- However, even domestic courts are increasingly politicised, citing both India’s and the U.S.’s recent judicial trends.
What is the Way Ahead?
- Focus must shift from reparation demands to self-reliant development and decarbonisation.
- Technology cooperation must reflect today’s multipolar realities, not outdated North-South binaries.
- Domestic legal frameworks — not international mandates — may be the most practical path for meaningful climate action.
- Political will at the national level remains the key barrier, not the absence of international legal mechanisms.
