ICJ's Verdict on Climate Change

The International Court of Justice has delivered a verdict that may be remembered as a watershed for climate jurisprudence. Today, the court made plain that states do not possess the luxury of inaction. Climate change is no longer the terrain of policy preference or economic constraint, it has entered the domain of legal obligation under international law.

The International Court of Justice

The ICJ has distilled this duty with unusual clarity. Governments are now expected to act with due diligence to prevent climate harm and to repair or compensate for environmental damage when it occurs. This principle, deeply rooted in the fabric of international environmental law, is given fresh force by the court’s language, which equates environmental protection with the very preservation of human rights. The ruling described failure to respond to climate change as “an internationally wrongful act,” a phrase that rings with the authority of legal tradition and the urgency of the present moment.

Few will fail to observe that the court has referenced the 1.5°C warming threshold as a legal benchmark. It is a signal to lawmakers, bureaucrats and judges that the boundaries of planetary safety are not negotiable. States are instructed to align their climate commitments with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thereby grounding the law in scientific consensus, an approach far removed from the rhetorical maneuvering that sometimes marks diplomatic summits.

Pakistan, standing as a climate-vulnerable nation, will feel both exposed and empowered by this development. The floods of 2022 and 2025 left one third of the country under water, a disaster keenly felt from the streets of Karachi to the mountains of Hunza, with grave economic consequences and human loss. For Pakistan and others in the Global South, the court’s opinion affirms that the responsibility of mitigation and adaptation rests with all, yet must be met with meaningful support from major emitters. The UN General Assembly’s question to the ICJ arose from efforts led by Vanuatu with broad backing from climate-vulnerable states, marking a rare moment where those suffering most from climate fallout shaped the global legal discourse.

2022 Flood in Pakistan

Even as the court’s ruling is advisory rather than enforceable, the weight of its moral and legal reasoning will likely reshape national courts, future negotiations, and the expectations of civil society. Legal scholars have noted that advisory opinions of the ICJ have previously shifted the interpretation of treaties and emboldened domestic judiciaries to hold governments accountable.

This moment should not be regarded as a legal abstraction. The court’s message is as relevant to policymakers in Islamabad as it is to officials in Brussels or Beijing. Environmental protection is a universal imperative, an expectation that the law will now reinforce, and, perhaps, an overdue promise to the generations that will inherit the planet.

References: World Court, Advisory Opinion July 2025; IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 2023; Hausfeld, "Legal Precedents in International Environmental Law" (2024); Bodansky, "The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law".