In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark Advisory Opinion with sweeping implications for global climate action and international law. The ruling establishes that countries are legally obligated to curb greenhouse gas emissions, prevent climate damage, and may be held liable for failing to meet these responsibilities.
The ICJ’s decision unequivocally states that nations — especially high-emitting and fossil fuel–producing states — must take all necessary steps to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as agreed under the Paris Agreement.
Notably, the judgement clarifies that international human rights law and environmental treaties together obligate countries to act with due diligence and ambition to protect both current and future generations from climate harm.
Key impacts of the July 2025 ICJ outcome
- Legal accountability: The ICJ confirms that states in breach of their climate obligations could be required to halt wrongful acts, provide guarantees of non-repetition, and make full reparation, potentially including financial compensation, for damages caused by climate change.
- Right to seek damages: Developing and vulnerable nations now have clear legal standing to pursue damages against major emitters for climate-related loss and damage, representing a significant advancement for climate justice and international reparations discussions.
- Obligations go beyond treaties: The ICJ rejected arguments by several large economies that existing climate treaties alone determine legal responsibility. Instead, the Court affirmed that general principles of international law — such as the duty to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm – apply broadly, extending countries’ obligations beyond treaty commitments.
- National policy pressure: Countries are expected to demonstrate that their climate targets (NDCs or Nationally Determined Contributions) represent their “highest possible ambition” and align with the 1.5°C goal. Inadequate targets could be challenged in future litigation, both domestically and internationally.
- Scope of remedies: States may be required to amend laws, revoke fossil fuel subsidies, or cease project approvals inconsistent with climate obligations. Compensation for climate harms could include payment for destruction, loss, or other damages suffered by impacted countries or communities.
- Equity and differentiation: The judgement emphasised the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” meaning all countries must act, but those with greater capacity and higher historic emissions bear a heavier burden for mitigation and support.
Long-term outcomes
The ICJ ruling is advisory rather than enforceable. However, its authoritative status means it will be widely referenced in courts, policymaking, and international negotiations. The explicit recognition that climate harms can lead to legal claims, and possibly reparations, will empower both countries and civil society worldwide to hold governments and corporations accountable for their climate actions and omissions. As such, it is expected to:
- Serve as a blueprint for climate lawsuits and legal actions worldwide
- Raise the bar for climate ambition, prompting states and business sectors to future-proof their plans and investments
- Accelerate the transition toward renewable energy, ecosystem protection, and low-carbon innovation globally
What’s next for organisations?
Following the ICJ ruling, organisations will need to significantly enhance their climate policies to align with the heightened legal expectations. Companies may be required to set more ambitious, science-aligned targets for emission reductions and strengthen due diligence throughout their operations and supply chains to ensure they are not contributing to unlawful climate harm.
Organisations should prepare for increased scrutiny from regulators, investors, and courts. Failure to demonstrate genuine efforts to meet climate goals could lead to litigation or reputational damage. They may also need to reassess any remaining investments in fossil fuels and expedite transitions to low-carbon technologies, as states are expected to revise licensing and subsidy regimes in line with their international climate obligations.
References: United Nations, Carbonbrief, ClientEarth, BBC
