“A victory for our planet,” “a historic turning point in climate justice and accountability,” a “momentous ruling” — this is what climate leaders are saying about the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ’s) long-awaited advisory opinion. The ruling marks a historic success for communities affected by climate change and kicks open the door for governments and companies to be held accountable for their climate impacts.
The ICJ opinion was meant to clarify international law on two questions:
- What are the obligations of governments under international law to ensure the protection of the environment?
- What are the legal consequences for governments under these obligations when they cause harm to the environment?
On July 23, the ICJ issued its unanimous advisory opinion which asserts that all governments have a responsibility to tackle the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change, and governments that fail to do so may be obliged to pay reparations for their climate impact. The basis for the Court’s decision is that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a human right. It was the largest case ever decided by the ICJ, the world’s highest court, with over 150 submissions from governments, international organizations, and civil society groups. The ruling by the ICJ affirms that human rights law and climate justice are interlinked, and climate inaction by governments or companies can amount to a breach of internationally recognized human rights.
Key insights from the landmark ICJ climate opinion
The impetus for this landmark climate ruling comes from a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change. After six years of tireless campaigning, and with crucial support from the Pacific island state of Vanuatu and over 130 other governments, the students took the case to the world’s highest court.
The ICJ opinion, which draws from international conventions and customary law, provides clear and unequivocal guidance about how governments should respond to the threat of climate change. The Court’s opinion has resounding implications for climate action in every country and sector of the economy. The following are three of the biggest insights from the 133-page opinion document.
There is more to climate action than the Paris Agreement
Among the key takeaways from the ICJ’s advisory opinion is that countries that have not signed on to the Paris Agreement of 2015 — or who want to leave, like the U.S. — are still obligated to prevent environmental damage caused by climate change and protect citizens from climate-related harm. Big emitters like the U.S., Australia, China, Saudi Arabia, and the UK argued against a broad interpretation of governments’ climate duties by hiding behind the Paris Agreement, arguing that no further legal obligations should be imposed. The ICJ unanimously ruled against that notion.
Based on this ruling, action under the Paris Agreement, including limiting global warming to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius, is a legal obligation. Only a handful of governments submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement on time this year, and many developed countries are still dragging their feet on submitting their NDC plans. NDC plans outline how nations intend to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts in line with 1.5 degrees Celsius. This year’s submissions should extend governments’ climate plans all the way to 2035. Under the ICJ’s ruling, failing to submit an NDC or failing to align NDCs with 1.5 degrees Celsius is potentially unlawful.
Governments harmed by climate change have the right to seek reparations
Another key takeaway from the opinion is that governments that cause climate harm may be obliged to pay reparations to harmed communities or governments. During evidence hearings, the Court heard from dozens of Pacific Islanders who have been displaced from their homes because of rising sea level caused by climate change. While it’s unclear how much an individual government would have to pay if a claim was successful, the global cost of climate-related harms amounts to $143 billion per year between 2000 and 2019 according to an analysis published in Nature. Most of that cost is attributable to the loss of human life.
According to reporting from the BBC, developing countries are exploring bringing new cases that cite the ICJ ruling against high-emitting rich countries. For those cases and the 3,099 active climate change litigation cases around the world — including some in the U.S. — the ICJ’s advisory opinion provides a major boost of authoritative support.
Climate inaction is a legal liability for corporations driving climate change
The ICJ also ruled that governments are responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their jurisdictions, and governments must regulate private entities’ emissions as part of their due diligence obligations. This has the potential to reshape corporate risk, regulatory strategy, and accountability frameworks for years to come.
Based on the ICJ’s advisory opinion, multinational corporations that contribute significantly to climate change or have supply chains that outsource climate harm may soon find themselves in legal trouble. Furthermore, lack of corporate action to address climate change can no longer be framed as a policy choice — according to the world’s highest court, it is a legal liability. Many jurisdictions around the world have already introduced mandatory climate-related disclosure rules, which require companies that meet certain size and revenue thresholds to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other climate-related information for investors. The ICJ’s ruling lends support to those rules and opens the door for stricter rules in the future as investors feel pressure to consider climate risk..
What the ICJ opinion means for the food system
The ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate could have far-reaching implications for the global food system. Although much of the opinion focuses on the pervasive issue of fossil fuels, the ICJ acknowledged the impact of agriculture. As governments face stronger legal pressure to reform sectors that are major contributors to GHG emissions, and multinational corporations face legal liability to address climate harm in their supply chains and business operations, the agriculture sector sits squarely in the scope of the ICJ ruling. Furthermore, by framing the climate obligations of governments as a human rights issue, the ICJ ruling supports a new legal and moral framing for farm workers and smallholder farmers: governments are not only obliged to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate risk, but to do so in ways that protect the rights and livelihoods of those most affected by the climate crisis. The following sections describe some of the ways that the ICJ ruling could support food system reform.
Governments should update their NDCs to better address agriculture ahead of COP30
Ahead of COP30, the ICJ’s ruling may influence how governments formulate and implement agriculture-related components of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Many governments have treated agricultural emissions as optional or secondary, with very few including specific plans to target agricultural emissions despite the fact that agricultural emissions account for roughly one-quarter of global emissions. Even if emissions from other sectors were phased out immediately, food-related emissions alone are projected to exceed the global target to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The ICJ’s ruling may raise the bar for NDC ambition and credibility, particularly in sectors like agriculture that are both high-emitting and highly vulnerable to climate impacts.
Governments can better defend against unfair lawsuits by multinational corporations
The ruling may also strengthen the ability of governments to defend climate and environmental regulations against challenges brought under trade agreements that include investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. For decades, ISDS provisions in trade and investment agreements have allowed multinational corporations, including those in the agriculture sector, to sue governments at an international tribunal over policy changes that they claim reduce the value of their investments. These cases often target regulations aimed at protecting the environmental or addressing climate change, creating what some experts refer to as a “regulatory chill” effect wherein governments hesitate to take bold action for fear of costly legal retaliation.
Although it is nonbinding, the ICJ ruling could change the legal landscape by affirming that governments have binding obligations under international law to prevent environmental harm and protect human rights from the impacts of climate change. When governments adopt policies that limit emissions, protect ecosystems, or restrict environmentally harmful practices, they can now argue that these measures are not only legitimate but essential under international law. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), this legal clarity could serve as a powerful defense in ISDS cases moving forward.
A boost to climate-related disclosure laws around the world
The ICJ’s ruling lends legal weight to the growing demand for mandatory climate-related disclosure rules, which are already in effect in over 20 jurisdictions around the world and require reporting from many of the world’s biggest food companies. The ICJ’s ruling could embolden more jurisdictions to adopt climate-related disclosure rules, or push for stronger rules that require emissions reductions — something that no disclosure rules currently require. Courts in the U.S. do not usually cite international court cases, and the U.S. dropped compulsory jurisdiction with the ICJ in 1985, so there may not be direct influence on U.S. court rulings. But indirect influence from the ICJ opinion on policymakers, activists, and multinational companies has the potential to bolster state-level disclosure rules which have been introduced to counter the federal government’s lack of climate leadership. California’s climate disclosure laws, which were signed into law in 2023, are the most far-reaching of the state-level laws. The SEC halted its defense of the federal climate-related disclosure rules this year.
A new era for climate justice
The world’s highest court has officially spoken to affirm that governments have an obligation to address climate change and protect citizens from climate harm. While the ICJ opinion is not binding for governments, legal experts expect it to have profound consequences for the climate movement. For the global food system, the ICJ ruling has the potential to affect the strength and validity of governments’ agriculture-related climate commitments, how multinational food companies account for climate risk in their supply chains and operations, and how legal cases can be brought against governments or high-emitting companies in the food sector. The ruling also helps to frame food system reform in response to climate change as a human rights concern for farm workers and smallholder farmers.
IATP will continue to track how governments and food system actors respond to the ICJ ruling and the shifting legal landscape. In the final pages of the ICJ opinion, the Court writes “Above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom — at the individual, social and political levels — […] in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.” With this ruling, the ICJ has given the climate movement new tools to build the future, but there is much hard work yet to be done.
Read the full ICJ opinion here. Also check out a great analysis of the ruling by Carbon Brief and a press release about the opinion from the Center for International Environmental Law.
