Environment: The International Court of Justice will deliver its first opinion on climate matters on July 23

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN's highest court, announced Monday that it will issue an opinion on July 23 establishing a global legal framework for combating climate change, the first of its kind.

She was tasked in December by the UN with issuing this opinion on the obligations of states to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluting states. The court's president, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, will read the opinion during a public hearing.

Planet conservationists hope the ICJ's opinion will have significant legal consequences, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and influencing ongoing court cases.

Others argue that the ICJ's decision will have limited impact because its advisory opinions are not binding and large polluting countries can simply choose to ignore them.

The UN, urged by the small island state of Vanuatu, asked the court, which sits in The Hague, to answer two questions. What obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth from greenhouse gas emissions? What are the legal consequences of these obligations when states, "by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system"?

The second question relates to the responsibilities of states for damage caused to smaller, more vulnerable countries and their populations, particularly countries threatened by rising sea levels and harsh weather conditions in regions such as the Pacific Ocean.

The ICJ heard more than 100 oral arguments in December, a record number. Many came from small states appearing before the court for the first time. “This may be the most important case in human history,” said Vanuatu’s representative, Ralph Regenvanu, at the opening of the two-week hearing. “The outcome of these proceedings will have repercussions for generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,” he told the panel of 15 judges.

The hearings essentially pitted the biggest polluters against small, vulnerable countries – a true David-and-Goliath battle, as Joie Chowdhury of the Center for International Environmental Law called it.

World powers argued that the existing legal arsenal – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – was sufficient and should not be tampered with.

After tough negotiations at COP29, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to finance the fight against climate change. Vulnerable nations said this was insufficient and urged the ICJ to do more. “This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,” said Fiji representative Luke Daunivalu. “Our people (...) are unfairly and wrongly paying the bill for a crisis they did not create. They expect justice, clarity, and decisiveness from this court,” he added.