International Court of Justice ruling delivers ‘earthquake’ on states’ obligations to address climate crisis
•
Article summary
- Landmark opinion finds states have a binding legal duty to prevent climate harm, including due to expanding fossil fuel production.
- The wide-ranging opinion has implications for governments’ voting positions on climate-related issues at the World Bank and other IFIs.
A new advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, on 23 July was cheered by climate advocates as vindicating “climate science as law.”
The landmark opinion confirmed that states have a binding legal duty to prevent climate harm and to protect human rights from the impacts of climate change. The ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications, including at the World Bank and other international financial institutions (IFIs).
“This momentous ruling by the world’s highest court doesn’t just mark a turning point in international law, but a point of no return on the path toward climate justice and accountability,” said Nikki Reisch of the US-based Center for International Environmental Law. “The message is clear: there is no carve-out for climate destruction under international law, and there is no legal or technical bar to holding states responsible for resulting harm,” she added.
According to climate advocates who contributed evidence to the ICJ case, the ruling could require stronger climate policies at IFIs, in order for states to fulfil their obligations. Even withdrawal from the Paris Agreement – as undertaken by the US – does not alleviate states’ obligations, per the ICJ ruling.
While a number of countries have moved to strengthen their ‘voice and a vote’ positions at the World Bank to align with a wider phaseout of public support for fossil fuels since the launch of the Clean Energy Transition Partnership at COP26 in 2021 (see Observer Winter 2021), the ICJ ruling is likely to bring further scrutiny to World Bank activities, given shareholder states are its ultimate owners.
“The ruling says that the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute a wrongful act under international law and reinforces obligations to align with the 1.5°C limit more broadly,” said María Alejandra Vesga Correa of global civil society organisation Oil Change International. “This could strengthen cases challenging countries’ overseas fossil fuel financing and may also implicate countries’ voice and voting power in relation to fossil fuel investments by international financial institutions.”
End of climate impunity for fossil fuel companies, and their private financiers
According to UK-based law firm Leigh Day, the ICJ found that climate change is an urgent and existential threat, and that the failure of states to act to address this crisis constitutes an “internationally wrongful act.” They noted that, “countries [who fail to act] could be considered liable under international law and that other countries could take legal action against them,” potentially resulting in legal orders “to cease their harmful activities, rectify the problems they have caused, or provide compensation.”
Leigh Day noted that the ICJ identified, “specific climate-harming activities — such as fossil fuel production, consumption, exploration licensing, and subsidies — that could now be considered internationally wrongful acts.” It indicated that states must “adequately regulate private actors’ activities and could be held liable for damage caused by their emissions if they failed to do so.”
The ICJ ruling stands in stark contrast to another area of law – investor-state dispute settlement tribunals, including the World Bank-hosted International Centre for Dispute Settlements, where a record number of claims have been brought by investors related to fossil fuels and mining projects in 2025, seeking compensation from states attempting to phase out carbon-intensive activities (see Observer Autumn 2022).
