“Reparations” for polluting countries, climate obligations… A summary of the announcements from the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, on July 23, 2025. — The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, July 23, 2025. JAMES PETERMEIER/ZUMA/SIPA

States that violate their climate obligations are committing an "unlawful" act and could be subject to compensation claims from the most affected countries, the International Court of Justice concluded on Wednesday, July 23, in an unprecedented advisory opinion intended to influence global jurisprudence.

Also read

An aerial view of the Schmiedingerkees Glacier on June 11, 2025, near Kaprun, Austria. It is retreating by an average of one to three meters per year. Austria has between 800 and 900 glaciers, almost all of which are retreating due to global warming.

Climate change: “Exceeding the 1.5°C threshold is now inevitable”

The UN's highest court, based in The Hague, unanimously established in this opinion, initially requested by students on the archipelago of Vanuatu , a legal interpretation of international law, which legislators, lawyers and judges from around the world can now use to change laws or sue states for their climate inaction.

The opinion is "a historic milestone for climate action," Vanuatu's Climate Minister, Ralph Regenvanu, said after the hearing on the steps of the Peace Palace, saying he was confident it would inspire "further legal action" around the world.

"Strict obligations to protect the climate system"

Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is an "urgent and existential threat," said presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa during a two-hour reading of the opinion.

The court rejected the idea put forward by major polluting countries that existing climate treaties – and in particular the annual COP negotiation process – were sufficient.

Also read

Near the Baku Olympic Stadium, venue of the 29th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP29).

COP29 Decryption : Oil Still King: “No Country Is Undertaking a Transformation Towards a Low-Energy Economy”

States have "strict obligations to protect the climate system," the judges argued. Agreeing with the small island states, the ICJ confirmed that the climate must be "protected for present and future generations" – while the major polluting countries absolutely refused to legally recognize the rights of individuals who were not yet born.

The most substantial part of the notice, and the one that will provoke the most resistance from rich countries, stems from these obligations: compensation owed to countries ravaged by the climate.

"The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include […] full reparation for the injury suffered by injured States in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction," said Yuji Iwasawa.

But the court sets the bar high: a direct and certain causal link must be established "between the wrongful act and the damage," which is certainly difficult to establish before a court, but "not impossible," conclude the 15 judges of the ICJ. This is the fifth unanimous opinion of the court in eighty years, according to the UN.

A “historical” opinion

It will take time for legal scholars to fully digest the 140-page opinion, and even longer to see whether national courts take it up. But already, many voices, both experts and activists, are highlighting the historic nature of the text.

"It's a historic victory for climate justice," former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment David Boyd told AFP. The court's interpretation of state obligations "will be a catalyst for accelerating climate action."

"For the first time, the world's highest court has established that states have a legal obligation to prevent climate damage, but also to fully repair it," commented Joana Setzer, one of the most expert lawyers on the subject at the London School of Economics. The opinion, she said, "strengthens the legal basis for climate justice."

Also read

Decryption “Without it, climate change would be even faster”: the ocean protects us, but for how long?

Climate scientists most disappointed by global political action agree. "This is a major decision," Johan Rockström, director of one of Europe's most renowned climate institutes, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told AFP. Every country can be held accountable in court, even if it is not a signatory to UN treaties, he added.

For American climatologist Michael Mann, the advice comes at a good time as Donald Trump continues to dismantle the edifice built by his Democratic predecessors to reduce greenhouse gases.

The court's opinion "makes the United States, and a few petrostates like Saudi Arabia and Russia, an outlaw country that threatens our people and our planet in the name of fossil fuel profits," he told AFP. The opinion will certainly be "tested" in court in the United States, Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau predicted for AFP. "It won't succeed with the current Supreme Court, but it's not permanent."

Political setbacks, legal advances

Many NGOs and activists have been eagerly awaiting this opinion, frustrated by the inaction or slowness of major polluting countries to reduce their combustion of oil, coal and gas.

Also read

During the flooding of the Villaine in Brittany in January 2025.

"Strict obligations to protect the climate system"

Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is an "urgent and existential threat," said presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa during a two-hour reading of the opinion.

The court rejected the idea put forward by major polluting countries that existing climate treaties – and in particular the annual COP negotiation process – were sufficient.

Also read

COP29 Decryption : Oil Still King: “No Country Is Undertaking a Transformation Towards a Low-Energy Economy”

The most substantial part of the notice, and the one that will provoke the most resistance from rich countries, stems from these obligations: compensation owed to countries ravaged by the climate.

A “historical” opinion

Also read

Decryption “Without it, climate change would be even faster”: the ocean protects us, but for how long?

For American climatologist Michael Mann, the advice comes at a good time as Donald Trump continues to dismantle the edifice built by his Democratic predecessors to reduce greenhouse gases.

Political setbacks, legal advances

Many NGOs and activists have been eagerly awaiting this opinion, frustrated by the inaction or slowness of major polluting countries to reduce their combustion of oil, coal and gas.

Also read

Interview : Towards climate-based social security? “Let’s open the debate without waiting for the system to really be in difficulty”

The court had to hold the largest hearings in its history, with more than 100 nations and groups speaking, in December at the Peace Palace.

The climate battle is increasingly involving courts, both national and international, to force climate action on a scale that political negotiations are failing to trigger – especially at a time when Europe and the United States are slowing down or backtracking on their commitments.

The annual COPs have certainly helped to change warming forecasts, but still not enough to meet the 2°C target limit, compared to the pre-industrial era, set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. The world is already at at least 1.3°C of warming.