Countries that fail to curb fossil fuel use may have to pay compensation, UN top court rules
The UN’s top court has ruled that countries that do not prevent climate damage may be liable for compensation.
On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a significant advisory opinion stating that countries are required to protect the climate system. If they do not, they must provide compensation and other remedies.
At the Peace Palace in The Hague, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa presented a 133-page document, stating that climate change has significant effects on natural ecosystems and communities. He added, “These consequences pose an imminent existential threat.”
The unanimous opinion covers a wide range of issues under international law. It says that states are responsible for all types of activities that harm the climate, and this is due to the use of fossil fuels.
A state’s failure to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions, such as through fossil fuel production, exploration licenses, or subsidies, “may be seen as an internationally wrongful act for which the state is accountable.”
According to this landmark opinion, those who fail to prevent climate damage could be held liable for compensation and reparations.
The unanimous opinion covers a wide range of issues under international law. States are responsible for activities that harm the climate, highlighting the need to address fossil fuel use.
A state’s failure to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions, including fossil fuel production and exploration, or to provide fossil fuel subsidies, may be considered an internationally wrongful act for which the state can be held responsible.
Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, Ralph Regenvanu, said it was a milestone moment for climate justice.
The court ruled that states must regulate private-sector activities that contribute to the climate crisis.
In 2023, the UN instructed the ICJ to create a document after significant campaigning and diplomacy by Pacific Island law students and Vanuatu.
This advisory opinion serves as a powerful instrument for advancing climate justice. “Has the ICJ given us a strong tool for climate justice?” asked Vishal Prasad, a law student who supported the case for the Vanuatu government.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the opinion, stating it confirmed that the Paris Climate Agreement goals should guide all climate policies. “This is a win for our planet, climate justice, and the impact of young people,” he said. “The world must respond.”
It was the largest case the court has heard. In December 2024, during a two-week hearing in The Hague, representatives from climate-vulnerable states argued before a panel of 15 judges that a few countries should be legally accountable for the effects of the climate crisis.
Top greenhouse gas emitters claim they have no obligations beyond the UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement. The court firmly dismissed that argument, stating that several other treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Montreal Protocol, are relevant.
Sustainable development principles are relevant to traditional international law, including shared responsibilities, fairness, intergenerational justice, and the precautionary principle. The court stated that states must work together to protect the climate, as uncoordinated actions won’t be effective.
The court stated that a clean and healthy environment is essential for enjoying various human rights, including the right to life, health, adequate living standards, and access to water, food, and housing.
The ICJ urged non-signatory countries of the climate change agreement to align their climate policies with international law. and other right-wing leaders have threatened to do so.
White House spokesman Taylor Rogers told Reuters, “President Trump and the administration are dedicated to prioritizing the interests of ordinary Americans.”
The court ruled that the global nature of the climate crisis doesn’t free individual states from responsibility. Affected individuals could potentially file climate-related legal claims against the responsible parties. The court acknowledged that proving a causal link in local pollution cases is challenging but stated it is possible with current scientific evidence.
The ICJ said the court could order compensation, which could include restoring infrastructure and ecosystems. In cases where the damage is irreparable, compensation could be awarded.
The ICJ is the third of four top courts to issue such a ruling on the climate crisis. This month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) declared that a healthy climate is a human right and emphasized that countries must legally manage greenhouse gas emissions. The African Court of Human Rights has only just begun the process.
Of all the courts, the ICJ has the broadest jurisdiction and a role in coordinating and unifying international law. Vanuatu now plans to take the ruling to the UN General Assembly for a resolution to confirm its findings.
Original writer: Isabella Kaminski
Courtesy: The Guardian
(Re write/ Edited by –
