A victory rooted in the Pacific: ICJ ruling signals legal shift on climate obligations

By Ron Rocky Coloma

States and major emitters have binding legal obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, protect human rights and repair the harm already inflicted, the International Court of Justice declared in the long-awaited advisory opinion sought by Vanuatu.

The court issued the historic opinion on July 23 in response to a question posed by a law class in Vanuatu in 2019: Could the world’s highest court be compelled to say what Pacific islanders already knew in their bones?

This is the first time the court has clearly stated that climate inaction violates international law.

“The court has handed us a legal backbone for climate justice. No more excuses,”

said Rufino Varea, director at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. “Those

who fuel this crisis must stop the harm and help repair it.”

The opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly and championed by Vanuatu and a coalition of Small Island Developing States, represents a major shift in the global climate landscape.

The ICJ ruled that countries cannot hide behind voluntary pledges while continuing to expand their fossil fuel operations. According to the Court, they are legally required to protect the rights to life, self-determination and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

Crucially, this obligation extends beyond borders. The Court stated that climate harms that cross into other nations trigger duties under customary international

law, and countries can be held accountable for both their actions and their inaction.

4“It’s a breath of legal oxygen,” said Richard Gokrun, managing director at Tuvalu Climate Action Network. “We’ve known that our survival has always been a question of justice, not a measure of charity extended to us by polluters.”

This wasn’t a case filed in a courtroom. It was a campaign, sparked in the Pacific and carried by youth to the United Nations. The idea originated at the University of the South Pacific, where a group of law students envisioned how international law could be utilized to safeguard their future.

That vision grew into Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, which partnered with the World’s Youth for Climate Justice to mobilize over 1,500 organizations and build diplomatic support across continents. The result was a 2023 UN resolution that asked the ICJ to weigh in on the legal consequences of climate change.

“Today, the world’s smallest countries have made history,” said Vishal Prasad, PISFCC director. “The ICJ’s decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities.”

The advisory opinion, while not legally binding, carries significant weight. The Court’s conclusions can influence negotiations, legislation and future litigation. Activists and governments say the opinion strengthens efforts to phase out fossil fuels, secure financing and hold polluters accountable.

“This is a victory forged by Pacific youth but owned by all,” said Cynthia Houniuhi, president of PISFCC. “We pushed the world’s highest court to listen and it did. Now, we move from legal words to living change.”

The ICJ’s opinion draws a sharp line through the climate debate. It establishes that states have enforceable obligations under international environmental law, human rights law and customary international law.

Simply complying with the Paris Agreement is not enough. Countries must take adequate and effective measures to prevent significant harm to people and ecosystems. These obligations extend to regulating private polluters, ending fossil fuel subsidies and halting activities that contribute to the crisis.

The 1.5°C target is now a legal reference point, not just a political aspiration. States can be held responsible for transboundary harm and are required to make full reparations, including financial compensation.

The Court also clarified that climate obligations are universal. Even countries not party to the Paris Agreement must act, and corporations within their jurisdiction cannot be allowed to sidestep responsibility.

“The Court makes clear that states can be held responsible for both what they do and what they fail to do,” said a joint statement from PISFCC and WYCJ.

It was a message echoed across the region.

“Every cyclone that tears through our islands is financed by someone else’s emissions,” said Mario Liunamel, coordinator of the Vanuatu Climate Action Network. “This puts that truth in law.”

The Court emphasized that climate action is inseparable from human rights. The right to life, health and self-determination—particularly for Indigenous peoples, youth and future generations—must guide every decision.

“The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition to respect, protect and fulfill all other human rights,” the opinion stated.

Governments must not only prevent harm but repair it. The ICJ confirmed that harm caused by emissions can be scientifically attributed to specific countries. Legal consequences include ceasing harmful activities, preventing their recurrence and providing full reparations to injured states and individuals.

For frontline communities, it was a vindication.

“This ruling is a guiding star,” said Dr. Sindra Sharma, international policy lead at PICAN. “Science has long told us what is needed. Now, the law does too.”

This moment did not come from a Western capital or a powerful bloc. It came from the Global South, from youth and small nations often left out of the geopolitical spotlight. The Republic of Vanuatu led the charge, not from the position of economic strength, but from moral clarity and lived experience.

“We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations' political interests,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change. “Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the US’s influence, major polluters cannot continue to act with impunity.”

The advisory proceedings drew record participation: 96 states and 11 international organizations presented their views. In The Hague, Indigenous peoples, island leaders and youth activists gathered in a People’s Assembly to make their demands visible.

“The realities of frontline communities have been presented to the world’s highest court and international law is on our side,” said Fenton Lutunatabua of 350.org. “A line has been drawn, and high-emitting states now have the obligation to address their climate responsibilities head on.”

The opinion is not the end of the campaign. It is a foundation for what comes after. States will meet at the UN General Assembly in September. In November, they will gather again in Belém, Brazil, for COP30. Climate finance, fossil fuel phaseout and legal accountability will all be on the table. PICAN and its partners plan to integrate the opinion into every forum—from new national climate commitments to strategic litigation.

“This ruling is a springboard for ambitious climate action,” said Nikki Reisch, climate director at the Center for International Environmental Law. “It affirms that those calling to phase out fossil fuels and make polluters pay have the law on their side.”

Noelene Nabulivou, DIVA International adviser, said Pacific feminists see the ruling as part of a broader transformation. “There is a safe future possible for this planet, and we are creating it,” she said. “Now, we will all work together to ensure accountability and justice.”

Eparama Qerewaqa of the Alliance for Future Generations in Fiji said the ruling gives legal weight to a generational fight.

“Our islands and oceans deserve to be protected,” he said. “This is just the start.

The world has heard us. Now, those most responsible must act and pay their dues.”

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition