Governments, international organizations, and environmentalists applaud the ICJ's "historic" climate ruling.

Madrid, July 24 (EFE).- Several governments, including Spain, the United Nations (UN), and environmental organizations have expressed their satisfaction with the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which recognizes the obligation of states to take measures against climate change. Environmentalists are calling it a "historic milestone" while they await the real impact.

Third Vice President and Minister of Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge, Sara Aagesen, stated this Wednesday on her Bluesky account that the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change "marks the way" for multilateral cooperation,

"Climate justice implies shared responsibilities and rights. The International Court of Justice's ruling, although non-binding, points the way: multilateral cooperation guided by science and human rights," he stated.

Forced to take action

The Minister for Ecological Transition also shared a video about the non-binding advisory opinion issued yesterday by the ICJ, based in The Hague (Netherlands), following a request from the UN General Assembly in March 2023.

Climate justice implies shared responsibilities and rights.

The International Court of Justice's ruling, although not binding, points the way: multilateral cooperation guided by science and human rights.

[image or embed]

— Sara Aagesen ( @saraaagesen.bsky.social ) July 24, 2025, 12:35

In it, the court unanimously determined that the signatory states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have "an obligation to adopt measures to contribute" to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Failure to comply with these "binding obligations" is "an internationally wrongful act that entails its responsibility" and may give rise to "reparations" to the injured country in the form of restoration, compensation, or satisfaction, according to the court.

Furthermore, the ICJ held that the human right "to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment" is "inherent in the exercise of other fundamental rights," at a time when the consequences of climate change are "grave and far-reaching."

Brussels studies the implications

Following the ruling, the reaction has also been swift in Brussels, where the European Commission's (EC) legal services are assessing the implications of this advisory opinion for the bloc.

"For the time being, we're taking note. Our lawyers and teams are studying the opinion to see exactly what it means and the implications for the EU," said Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, the EU's climate spokesperson, in a press conference on Thursday.

The question now is precisely what impact this decision will have, given that it is a non-binding ruling and, furthermore, the ICJ does not determine specific responsibilities in this consultative phase, according to Ecologists in Action.

China and Colombia, satisfied

For now, however, initial reactions to the ruling have been positive, both from some countries and, especially, from environmental organizations.

UN human rights chief Volker Türk called the ruling "a resounding victory" and "clearly and incontrovertibly confirms the vast impacts of climate change and the broad obligations of states in this regard under international law."

The Chinese government has expressed its support for the ruling, which "underscores the obligation of all countries to strengthen international cooperation" and reflects "the long-standing positions and proposals of China and other developing countries."

For its part, the Colombian government also welcomed the ruling, which consolidates "a more coherent and robust global legal framework on the matter, amid growing demands from countries in the global south seeking greater commitment and international cooperation to strengthen their position and resilience in the face of the negative effects of climate change."

"Historic decision" for organizations

Although the most resounding celebrations have undoubtedly come from environmental organizations, such as Flora Vano, the national director of the ActionAid Federation in the Vanuatu archipelago, who spoke of a "historic decision" and a "powerful tool" to confront "the polluters who don't seem to care that their actions are destroying countries" like hers in the South Pacific and "demand that they be held accountable."

Others, such as World's Youth for Climate Justice and Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, have called the ICJ's decision a "turning point for the most affected communities around the world" because "climate justice is no longer optional: polluting countries are legally obliged to reduce their emissions and compensate those already suffering the consequences."

In Spain, Greenpeace has spoken of a "historic resolution" that marks "a shift in international law, which is beginning to place climate protection and human rights above the economic interests of corporations."

For their part, Ecologists in Action believe that this is not just a call to action, but rather "a mandate" that they will use as a civil society.

Fight in the courts

Specifically, environmental organizations' lawyers have focused on how this ruling could affect ongoing legal proceedings, such as the so-called Climate Trial .

"The Constitutional Court now has the Climate Trial in its hands, and it's vital that they interpret it in accordance with this historic precedent, in order to address the current emergency," said the coordinator of the Legal Department of Ecologists in Action.

At the international level, the Swiss association KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz (Swiss Older Women for Climate) denounced the Swiss government for not taking sufficient measures to combat climate change and obtained a favorable ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in April 2024.

However, four months after the European ruling, the Swiss government dismissed it, arguing that the court had "exceeded its powers" and that it had "in any case" complied with the climate requirements.

Now, Greenpeace has asserted that the ICJ's decision, in line with that of the ECHR, "demonstrates that Switzerland is fighting a losing battle."