When a class of law students dares to think big in Fiji, it can change the course of climate justice around the world.
A five-year quest by Pacific island countries to clarify states’ legal obligations to tackle climate change, triggered by an assignment given to 27 university students, has led to a landmark ruling delivered last week by the world’s highest court in The Hague.
The International Court of Justice ruled unanimously that failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions may be “internationally wrongful.” It said those responsible must stop polluting activities, and—where restoring infrastructure or ecosystems proves impossible—must compensate communities that suffered as a result. The decision also holds states accountable for companies under their jurisdiction which fuel the climate crisis.
“It is an amazing win,” said Farhana Yamin, a British lawyer and activist who helped to craft the Paris Agreement and has advised small-island nations in climate negotiations. “Very humbled and grateful to youth leadership from the Pacific for taking this forward.”
The decision is seen as a turning point for climate justice, ushering in a new era where countries and companies can be held accountable for their actions. “It sets a new normal,” said Jorge Viñuales, a professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge and one of the legal experts behind the case. “[It’s] a new legal baseline that cuts through the fog and calls a spade a spade.”
“Justice is no longer a distant demand,” said Mary Robinson, former United Nations high commissioner for human rights and former president of Ireland, in a statement. “It is now the law.”
Bryce Rudyk, a legal advisor for the Alliance of Small Island States at the U.N. andclimate program director at New York University, told Atmos that the outcome of the case was “better than we even hoped.”
The ruling reframes climate action as a legal obligation, not just a moral plea or a political choice. This hands vulnerable countries a powerful tool for climate justice. It’s bound to change the dynamics of negotiations on the global stage and how litigation plays out in state courts, according to Viñuales. It also opens the door to fresh legal challenges for compensation and reparations. Countries can now more easily sue each other over climate change.
“It sets a new normal. It’s a new legal baseline that cuts through the fog and calls a spade a spade.”
Jorge Viñuales
professor of law and environmental policy, University of Cambridge
A fund designed to compensate for climate-related damages was established two years ago at COP28, but it has only received a fraction of the the costs expected each year. This decision now empowers nations, groups, or people harmed by climate impacts to demand further reparations from major polluters.
In outlining the verdict, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa affirmed that climate change threatens basic human rights, including to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment,” and established a state’s duty to protect those rights. But he acknowledged that ultimately, international law has a limited role in resolving the climate crisis.
Advisory opinions are not legally binding. Because the ICJ can’t impose penalties or force countries to abide by its decision, it’s up to states, national courts, and U.N. bodies to act on the ruling. Still, “this idea that the decision is not binding, it’s a little bit of a red herring,” said Rudyk. “The purpose … is to give advice to states on the content of international law. The court … was saying, this is what the law is.”
ICJ rulings give clarity on existing laws which are already binding. They carry legal weight and have in the past been respected. Other courts can now cite the opinion as authoritative guidance. All member states recognize the world court’s jurisdiction just by being part of the U.N. But political resistance stands in the way of making the ruling count.
The United States, one of the world’s top emitters, withdrew from the Paris Agreement for the second time earlier this year. During hearings on the case, like-minded polluters argued their obligations are limited to existing treaties, like the Paris Agreement, which already offer legal guidelines for action. The court rejected this position, stating that even countries not party to climate treaties must act in ways consistent with international laws that support climate action. In essence, it said climate action is bigger than the Paris Agreement.
Although major polluters are unlikely to rush to fall in line, the ruling ratchets up diplomatic pressure. “Anyone can ignore any law,” said Rudyk. “But [the decision] does give us added leverage.” Having a clear standard to interpret compliance means states attempting to sidestep the decision risk penalties or international backlash.
“We will now take the ICJ ruling back to the United Nations General Assembly, and pursue a resolution that will support implementation of this decision.”
Ralph Regenvanu
Minister for Climate Change, Energy, Meteorology, Geohazards, Environment and Disaster Management, Vanuatu
For example, the court set 1.5 degrees Celsius of global heating as the legally binding standard that states should target with their official action plans under the Paris Agreement, called Nationally Determined Contributions. These plans must now reflect the highest possible ambition per climate science. “In the past, we’ve never had a clear yardstick to measure them against,” said Rudyk. “But now we do.”
The court further affirmed that island states would continue to legally exist even if inundated by sea level rise. It also said climate migrants should not be returned to countries where their lives are at risk and that states’ actions must aim to protect the rights of future generations.
For years, small-island states put all their faith in mechanisms like COP climate negotiations, to little avail. As pleas for meaningful action went unheard, Vanuatu took the students’ bold proposal to the world’s top court to clarify states’ obligations. “This was a crazy idea!” said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, Energy, Meteorology, Geohazards, Environment and Disaster Management, following the ruling. “We needed youth to say this is what we can do.”
Regenvanu spearheaded the campaign to submit a formal request for the case to the U.N. General Assembly, backed by over 100 other countries and organizations, which was adopted unanimously and agreed to by the ICJ in 2023. It was the court’s largest-ever case, with testimonies from nearly 100 countries and international organizations, delivering a rare unanimous decision.
Vishal Prasad, one of the law students leading the campaign as director of the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said the ruling marks a “transformative” moment where the world moves from systems of oppression to systems of change. It’s a shift that Rudyk said comes after nearly 150 years of international law reflecting the interests of large, powerful states.
The ruling is expected to take center stage at the U.N. General Assembly meeting in September and COP30 in November. “We will now take the ICJ ruling back to the United Nations General Assembly, and pursue a resolution that will support implementation of this decision,” said Regenvanu, who sees an opportunity to push for more ambitious calls for action.
Rudyk expects pushback by states opposed to the court’s decision. But ultimately, he said, ignoring the ruling won’t serve their interests: “It is generally in States’ interests to obey and have others obey international law.”
Biome
Join our membership community. Support our work, receive a complimentary subscription to Atmos Magazine, and more.