In the ICJ's advisory opinion issued on July 23, 2025, the Court recognized that all states have a legal obligation under international law to address climate change. This ruling emphasizes that failing to meet climate commitments, such as those under the Paris Agreement, could be seen as an internationally wrongful act, especially if states continue to subsidize fossil fuels or neglect emissions regulations. While the ICJ’s opinions are non-binding, they carry considerable influence and could shape future legal actions, particularly in national courts or climate litigation cases. However, I suggest that the lack of enforcement power means the real impact depends on states’ willingness to comply and the ability of affected parties to bring cases before national or international courts. Countries like the U.S. and China, which have not agreed to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, may not face direct legal consequences. Nonetheless, this opinion marks an important step in embedding climate accountability into international law, offering a potential avenue for vulnerable nations to seek reparations and pushing all countries to take stronger action against climate change.
The ICJ recently gave an advisory opinion on states’ climate obligations which, while not legally binding, carries a lot of legal and political weight. Basically, if a country doesn’t stick to its commitments under the Paris Agreement, there’s no direct punishment since the agreement is more about voluntary pledges than strict enforcement. But the ICJ’s opinion could make existing international laws — like the duty not to cause environmental harm or respect for human rights — more enforceable. So even though the Paris Agreement doesn’t have penalties built in, countries could still face lawsuits, domestic court rulings, or international pressure if they fall short on climate action.
Mahsa Kayyal Dear Madam,
Thank you so much for taking the time to address the issue at hand. Even though countries may file a suit and the ICJ renders a judgment, I don't think it carries much weight, as there is no legal force behind the ICJ's ruling. Some states have disregarded ICJ decisions, rendering them inconsequential. So, while it may have set a precedent, I believe this is the gap that we need to address, in some way or another.
Pursuant to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):
States are legally obligated to protect the climate system and the environment from anthropogenic emissions, which includes regulating private entities operating within their jurisdiction
A state’s failure to fulfill these obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act, requiring:
Immediate cessation of the wrongful conduct;
Full reparation for the damage caused
While the opinion is not legally binding, it is expected to serve as a powerful precedent for future international and domestic litigation
اتفاق باريس نفسه لا يتضمن “عقوبات” أو إنفاذًا عقابيًا؛ آلياته للتنفيذ والامتثال “تيسيرية وغير خصامية” (لجنة امتثال بموجب المادة 15، والشفافية والمراجعات الدورية)، ولا تفرض جزاءات إذا تقاعست دولة عن تحقيق مساهمتها المحددة وطنيًا.
لكن بعد الرأي الاستشاري لمحكمة العدل الدولية (يوليو/تموز 2025) تغيّر الإطار القانوني الأشمل: المحكمة قرّرت أن التزامات الدول حيال تغيّر المناخ لا تقتصر على اتفاق باريس، بل تستند أيضًا إلى قواعد أوسع من القانون الدولي العام (واجب منع الضرر عبر الحدود، واجب العناية الواجبة والاحتياط، وحماية حقوق الإنسان والبيئة). وبالتالي، قد يُعدّ التقاعس عن اتخاذ إجراءات كافية “فعلًا غير مشروع دوليًا” بما يفعّل نظام مسؤولية الدولة.
Haneen Hasan Laith Thank you dear for your valuable comment and answer- however, can you please translate the text for the reader's convenience? I shall be obliged
Abdullah Alkhazaali True - I agree with what you have said. But in reality, it is a completely different picture.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication