On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the obligations of countries in respect of climate change. What the world’s highest court said in its opinion is notably not legally binding, but it shapes how courts, lawyers, and legal scholars understand and look at the law. Moreover, what the court said about countries’ obligations around environmental due diligence and regulating private actors might be particularly interesting in the context of e-waste, raw materials, and the energy transition.
⚖️ Climate change
The court described climate change as “an existential threat”. It highlighted the nexus between climate justice and human rights. The court fundamentally held that a stable climate is an essential “precondition” for the rights to life, health, food, water, and housing. In this context, the court also gave special attention to children, women, and Indigenous Peoples as vulnerable groups. According to the court, climate obligations are real and legally enforceable. In the face of climate change, countries have the obligation to prevent significant environmental harm and to protect the climate. In this context, countries must also uphold fundamental rights and cooperate internationally.
⚖️ Countries’ responsibilities
The court held that the climate must be protected for present and future generations. It said that countries have a duty to prevent significant harm to the climate, even if they are not a party to any international or regional climate treaty. It also said countries must act urgently, based on “the best available science on the causes, nature and consequences of climate change”. According to the court, countries must set up robust national climate plans, regulate private actors, and provide support to vulnerable nations.
⚖️ Reparations for damage
The court said that both inaction or the failure to act decisively can be an “internationally wrongful act”, which would come with consequences under the law of state responsibility. Risks of significant environmental damage must therefore be assessed by countries, and reparations are warranted if a country acts or fails to act appropriately or responsibly. Notably, according to the court, the failure to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions – by producing, consuming, giving out exploration licenses, or subsidizing fossil fuels – can be an “internationally wrongful act”.
⚖️ Due diligence
The court said that a stringent standard applies for countries’ environmental due diligence. The court said countries must obtain and actively examine relevant scientific and technological information and factor in broadly accepted technical standards and best practices. Countries must also adopt appropriate legal and regulatory measures. This includes putting in place effective policies to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are both fast and long-lasting.
Read more about the advisory opinion here:
- https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf
- https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf