- What Causes Sudden Temperature Drops In Spring? - August 13, 2025
- What You Need To Know About Winter Storm Preparedness - August 13, 2025
- How Meteorologists Predict Severe Weather Events - August 12, 2025
A Revolutionary Decision Emerges from The Hague
What started as a legal dream of Pacific island law students has now transformed into one of the most significant climate justice victories in recent memory. The International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands announced on Wednesday that countries can now sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. This groundbreaking ruling opens entirely new pathways for climate accountability that could reshape international law forever.
The ruling is non-binding, but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences. It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.
Vanuatu’s David vs Goliath Battle
The idea for the case originated with a group of law students in Fiji in 2019, who were trying to find a way to hold the rich world accountable for climate change. Their plan was endorsed by the government of Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation facing an existential threat from fast-rising seas. In 2021, it called on the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on countries’ legal responsibility to fight the climate crisis.
Vanuatu successfully led a coalition of 132 nations in adopting by consensus a UNGA Resolution calling for a non-binding Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice. Since 1993, sea levels around Vanuatu’s shores have risen by about 6 millimeters per year — significantly faster than the global average.
The Trillion-Dollar Question
The financial stakes of this ruling are absolutely staggering. Previous analysis published in Nature estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change – or $16 million per hour. Climate change has caused an estimated $2.8 trillion in damage over the past 20 years, with study authors estimating the cost of extreme weather damages from 2000 to 2019 to average around $143 billion, which breaks down to around $16.3 million per hour.
Looking ahead, the costs will only escalate. If current trends continue, the world could face $145 billion in insured losses in 2025, according to Swiss Re. This would be a 6% raise on the 2024 figures.
Historic Court Proceedings Set New Records
More than 100 states and international organizations took part in two weeks of hearings before the court in December. These are the largest proceedings ever handled by the ICJ, with 91 written statements filed by states and a further 62 comments submitted by states, international organisations and civil society groups. A record 97 states and 11 organisations participated in the oral proceedings held in The Hague from 2–13 December.
The advisory opinion marks the first time the International Court of Justice, the UN’s top court based in the Hague, has formally addressed the climate crisis. The court was asked to consider two fundamental questions: what legal obligations nations have under international law to address climate change, and what the consequences should be for countries that harm the climate.
Legal Framework for Climate Reparations
The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation. This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis.
Countries feeling the sharp end of climate change may be entitled to reparations for the harm caused by rising temperatures. The implications stretch far beyond simple compensation, potentially creating entirely new legal precedents for environmental accountability.
Corporate Accountability Takes Center Stage
As well as compensation, the court also ruled that governments were responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries. It said specifically that subsidising the fossil fuel industry or approving new oil and gas licenses could be in breach of a country’s obligations.
This ruling could fundamentally change how governments interact with fossil fuel companies. Research suggests the top 21 fossil fuel companies, also known as Carbon Majors, would owe $209 billion every year from 2025 to 2050 based on their historical contributions to climate change.
The Roadblocks to Implementation
If a country wants to bring a case back to the ICJ to make a ruling on compensation then it can only do so against countries which have agreed to its jurisdiction, which includes the likes of the UK, but not US or China. But a case can be brought in any court globally, whether that be domestic or international, citing the ICJ opinion.
The U.S. generally doesn’t recognize the authority of the court. On top of that, the court’s ruling is advisory, so it’s nonbinding for all countries. Yet the decision could have a big impact. It could bolster the hundreds of other climate change lawsuits working their way through national courts.
Climate Vulnerable Nations Celebrate Victory
“This is a huge win for climate vulnerable states. It’s a huge win for Vanuatu, which led this case and is going to change the face of climate advocacy,” said barrister Stephanie Robinson at Doughty Street Chambers, who represented the Marshall Islands.
As ActionAid Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said, this ruling is necessary because “powerful polluters don’t seem to care that their actions are destroying countries like mine, and intensifying burdens on women, who often bear the brunt of climate impacts”. “The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court.
Scientific Evidence Backing Legal Action
In the decade up to 2023, sea levels have risen by a global average of around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches), with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Under the Paris Agreement, countries pledged to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above levels before humans began burning large amounts of fossil fuels. The world is currently heading towards 3 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, which would bring catastrophic impacts and the risk of triggering climate tipping points, including ice sheet melting, which may be irreversible on human timescales.
The Ripple Effect Across International Law
Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change.
While the ICJ’s rulings are not legally binding on countries, they do carry a lot of weight and moral authority. As such, the ICJ’s legal view is likely to add fresh and significant momentum to pushing countries to cut emissions faster and strengthen their climate-related plans and actions, including under the Paris Agreement. ICJ advisory opinions may also be cited in cases in domestic courts and will help those who bring countries or companies to court over their climate-related acts or omissions.
Economic Consequences Already Unfolding
Even if CO2 emissions were to be drastically cut down starting today, the world economy is already committed to an income reduction of 19% until 2050 due to climate change. These damages are six times larger than the mitigation costs needed to limit global warming to two degrees.
With Hurricane Helene at the top of the list, there were 27 disasters in the United States in 2024 that individually cost $1 billion or more. It was the second-highest number since the NOAA record began in 1980. October’s Hurricane Milton was the most expensive single event, causing $60 billion in damages and claiming 25 lives. Hurricane Helene, which struck the US, Cuba and Mexico in September, followed closely at $55 billion and killed 232 people.
Future Litigation Strategies Take Shape
Developing countries are already exploring bringing new cases seeking compensation for historic contributions to climate change against richer, high emitting nations citing the ICJ opinion, according to lawyers. Climate litigation has become a very big strategy for climate activists around the world, and this will create a new wave of climate litigation. Some of those climate activists are hoping this is a turning point.
The advisory opinion is likely to influence climate change lawsuits in courts all over the world – including those where small island states are seeking compensation from developed nations for historic climate damage. This creates an entirely new legal landscape where climate accountability becomes enforceable through multiple judicial systems worldwide.
The Path Forward
“We’re hoping that the ICJ will say that it is a legal obligation of states to address climate change. You have to respect other states and their right to self-determination,” Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu said. “Colonialism is gone – you know, supposedly gone – but this is a hangover where your conduct as a state continues to suppress the future of the people of another country. And you don’t have a legal right to do that under international law. And not only that, but if your actions have already caused this harm, there have to be reparations for that”.
The ruling represents more than just legal precedent. It embodies a fundamental shift in how the international community views climate responsibility, transforming what was once seen as a political issue into a matter of legal obligation. What began with determined law students in Fiji has now become a weapon that vulnerable nations can wield against the world’s biggest polluters.
