WIREDGOV

EXPERT COMMENT

The Court’s advisory opinion affirms that inadequate action on climate change may violate international law. Its findings could shape the contours of debate at COP30.

Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous ruling (its ‘advisory opinion’) in response to the questions posed by the UN General Assembly regarding the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. 

Many rightfully view the advisory opinion as a milestone in the codification of states’ legal obligations and responsibilities concerning climate change. The ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding, and the Court cannot compel countries to abide by its findings. But the opinion is consequential. Governments’ failure to act on climate change can now be argued to be a breach of law – with potential legal, financial and diplomatic consequences.

That could have significant implications. The threat of exposure to litigation in national courts may help force governments to more urgently reduce emissions and demonstrate their compliance with treaty negotiations. The opinion is also likely to be used as legal precedent in international negotiations and in crafting future treaties. Coming in the lead-up to COP30, scheduled for November in Brazil, it will provide smaller countries with important new leverage.  

Click here to continue reading the full version of this Expert Comment on the Chatham House website.