What does the ICJ’s opinion on climate mean for the future of global climate action? | Experts’ Opinions

An advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this summer is sparking “heated debates” with states have legally binding obligations under international law to protect the climate and prevent harm from climate change. This means that countries that face climate-induced disasters could request compensation from states that fail to respect climate obligations, including the historical emission of greenhouse gases. Although the decision is not binding, experts think it could have some important consequences, bringing advantages for countries that are extremely vulnerable to climate change. Following discussions around this subject, we asked professionals to share their opinions on what the ICJ’s decision means for the future of sustainable development and whether it can really set back the global warming process. Check their insights in the article below.

DevelopmentAid: What does the ICJ’s climate ruling mean for the future of global climate action and sustainable development?

“It would be easy to dismiss the ICJ advisory opinion as yet another example of virtue signaling from a “woke” multilateral institution – notably one that doesn’t have the power to implement or enforce its judgements. No doubt, this is exactly what the Trump administration, the petrostates and the incumbent multinational corporations in the oil and gas sector will do. But to ignore this landmark legal precedent would be to misunderstand what it means for shifting global norms. This is how change happens in complex, living systems. In effect, the ICJ provides a strong signal, which ripples throughout our interconnected societies, thereby reinforcing climate justice as a social norm. On its own, this will not change the world. But it does not have to because it is not on its own. There are millions of others who are working towards the same ends. The ICJ has just created an amplifying effect – or what we call in systems science, a positive, reinforcing feedback loop. Hence, we should celebrate this moment, while doubling down on climate advocacy and action in our own sphere of influence – not least calling on our governments to translate the ICJ judgement into national legislation.”

“This pivotal judgement, while non-binding, carries immense legal and moral authority. It clarifies existing international law, effectively shifting climate action from a political option to a legal imperative. By explicitly linking climate harm to human rights, it affirms the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, providing a stronger legal basis for accountability. This can embolden climate litigation at both domestic and international levels, potentially leading to claims for compensation from states and even from private actors responsible for significant emissions. The ruling also reinforces the 1.5 C goal of the Paris Agreement as a legal benchmark, pushing states to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). For sustainable development, the ruling emphasizes the interconnectedness of environmental protection and human rights. It urges states to integrate climate action into all development strategies and ensure vulnerable communities are protected and justly compensated for climate-induced damages. The ICJ’s opinion also explicitly underscores the intrinsic connection with the Law of the Sea. The Court affirmed that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are considered as “pollution of the marine environment” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This means states have binding obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment from the impacts of climate change, including ocean acidification and sea-level rise. This highlights that climate action isn’t just a terrestrial concern; it has profound implications for oceans and the survival of island nations, often at the forefront of these climate-induced crises. Historically, ICJ advisory opinions have played a crucial role in clarifying international law. For instance, the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) significantly influenced the international community’s stance against apartheid. Similarly, the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory clarified international humanitarian law. These cases demonstrate how, by providing authoritative interpretations of international law, ICJ opinions can generate significant international pressure, shape state practice, and serve as a foundation for subsequent legal and political actions. The climate ruling is poised to have a similar impact, offering a powerful new tool for climate justice advocates and potentially reshaping international climate negotiations and policies for years to come.”

“The ICJ’s July 2025 advisory opinion marks a historic turning point, elevating climate obligations from political pledges to enforceable duties under international law. By affirming that states have a legal responsibility to reduce GHG emissions and protect vulnerable populations, the ruling strengthens the foundation for climate justice claims – particularly from developing nations suffering from climate-induced disasters. This ruling may drive stricter domestic climate policies, accelerate decarbonization, and shift financial flows. Financial institutions and investors could face greater legal and reputational risks for backing high-emission activities, prompting the deeper integration of climate risk into due diligence. It also reinforces the ‘polluter pays’ principle, strengthening the case for loss and damage financing and increasing pressure on IFIs to align concessional finance with climate justice rather than risk alone. The opinion further affirms that states hold binding obligations to protect the climate system, and that failure to act, including continued fossil fuel subsidies or exploration licensing, may constitute an internationally wrongful act. This interpretation directly challenges the adequacy of many NDCs, which remain politically diluted and misaligned with the 1.5 C pathways. Ultimately, this marks a new era for sustainable development – one where equity, accountability, and finance must align to enable just transitions.”

“The International Court of Justice landmark advisory opinion confirms and introduces into the legal field of all states the fact that the impact of climate change is global. Observations on the reciprocal influence of negligent behaviours on the environment in one region on the livelihood and welfare of people living in other corners of the world are mounting along with their combined effects. Indeed, the most outstanding and visible proof of the common failure and thus joint liability are the rising temperatures and the rising sea level that result in the degradation of marine ecosystems. This is a direct threat to Africa’s socioeconomic development, as stated by the AU Africa Blue Economy Strategy (2020). The response to the depletion of the aquatic resources mostly originates from outside the African continent. African countries have little leverage on the decisions made by industrialized countries although their prosperity also depends on the conservation of the former marine natural resources. As in contractual situations, where partners’ liability is solidary and unlimited, in case of negligence of the joint commitment, the law can claim that the more solvable partner answers for the joint engagement. The individual interest of each partner is subordinated to the continuation of the partnership because the impact of climate change is a threat to its survival. This is the primeval law of humankind, enshrined in the legal frame of climate justice enunciated by the ICJ.”

“The recent advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice reminds us that the wealthiest nations have a legal obligation to reduce their emissions and thus protect the most vulnerable populations. Yet, a painful contradiction persists: while limited aid is offered, these same countries continue to promote polluting production models and export outdated technologies to the Global South. From the Global South, we are not merely victims of climate change — we are a crucial part of the solution. Our territories — from the Amazon rainforest to the Andean glaciers — are essential to the planet’s ecological balance. Protecting them benefits all of humanity, not just our own nations. And yet, we have not received financing or technical support proportionate to the strategic value of these ecosystems. Countries like Colombia have both the moral and legal grounds to demand fair compensation. This is not charity — it is an ecological debt. Calling for funding, technology transfer, and innovation partnerships is not a protest — it is a strategic opportunity for meaningful development. We want to build a sustainable future, not repeat the error-filled path taken by industrialized nations. Our productive transition must be an opportunity to innovate through resilience and equity, not to reproduce harmful models. It is time to change the narrative: climate justice is not a favor — it is an essential condition for global sustainability. Demanding structural cooperation and fair participation is a recognition of the vital role we play in the planet’s future. The ecological transition will only be possible if we move forward together — with justice, shared responsibility, and a long-term vision.”

“The ICJ’s July 2025 advisory opinion represents a significant step toward codifying international legal responsibility for climate action, affirming that states have obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect vulnerable populations. However, its impact is constrained by the non-binding nature of advisory opinions and the lack of enforcement mechanisms. While the ruling may reinforce accountability among cooperative states – essentially “keeping honest actors honest” – it is unlikely to compel action from governments that lack political will or resources. Some may even view it as an external attempt to hinder development. Rather than emphasizing punitive consequences, global efforts should prioritize the shared benefits of compliance and international cooperation. Framing climate action around mutual economic, health, and security advantages can foster broader participation and reduce resistance from both developed and developing nations. Highlighting opportunities for green innovation, resilience-building, and equitable growth may prove more effective than threats of legal liability. Additionally, concerns that liability could deter developed countries from engaging in climate diplomacy must be addressed through fair, transparent, and collaborative frameworks. The ICJ opinion provides a strong moral and legal foundation for climate justice, but lasting progress will depend on positive incentives, inclusive dialogue, and shared responsibility – beyond mere legal mandates.”

“Despite the significance of the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion, future global actions face complex challenges. The first key challenge is obligating individual states for specific climate damages as the collective and historical greenhouse emissions play a major factor in climate degradation. Hence, determining equitable contributions from industrialized nations to identify whom to sue and for what share will be a necessity. Accordingly, discussions and consensus over strategy development to tackle this issue is the first priority. The second critical challenge is in providing equitable scientific research and financial support for nations that struggle with human rights and development decline and inadequate capacity in climate research, and in accessing complex international finance mechanisms. Ensuring funding is grant-based, easily accessible and with priority to “Loss and Damage” is crucial to bridge this gap. This will enable all countries to adapt and rebuild during the escalating climate change impacts.”

See also: The potential of debt-for-nature swaps in the developing countries | Experts’ Opinions

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on climate action and responsibility could have significant impacts on policies, cooperation, and even the economies of many countries. For the international development sector, this may mean increased demand for expertise in climate justice, sustainable finance, environmental law, and other related sectors, opening doors to new roles and projects worldwide. In order not to miss any opportunities, a sensible action is to remain up to date with the latest openings without spending days and weeks looking for them. The DevelopmentAid’s Individual Professional Membership helps experts to gain both time and stand out from the competition. They gain access to thousands of job opportunities in the international development sector, access to tenders and grants for individuals, increased visibility and the contacts of more than 400,000 organizations active in the sector. With all these tools at their fingertips, candidates can boost their chances of landing the right opportunity by several times compared to traditional job searching.