Context

• In a historic advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a fundamental human right. The case was initiated by Vanuatu and supported by over 130 nations vulnerable to climate change.

About the Issue: What was It

• In 2023, the UN General Assembly requested the ICJ’s opinion on state obligations under international law to tackle climate change and the legal consequences for inaction.
• States’ obligations under international law to protect the environment
• Legal consequences for failing to meet these obligations.

Origin of the Initiative

• In September 2021, the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu launched a campaign to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on climate change. 
• The move highlighted the urgency for stronger legal action, especially for vulnerable small island nations threatened by rising sea levels.

Legal Framework and Importance

• Under the UN Charter, both the General Assembly and the Security Council have the authority to request advisory opinions from the ICJ. 
• Although these opinions are not legally binding, they carry significant legal and moral weight, serving to clarify and advance the development of international law.

Key Highlights of ICJ Ruling 

• Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment is Human Rights:  States are bound by treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and must act on climate change to protect these rights.
• States Obliged to Limit Emissions:  States must prevent harm from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and ensure meeting the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. 
• Global temperatures have already increased by 1.3°C since pre-industrial times.
• Consequences for Non-Compliance: If states fail to meet obligations, they:
• incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, and
• may be required to offer guarantees of non-repetition, and make full reparation depending on the circumstances.

Some countries, like the US and Russia, have opposed any court-mandated emission cuts. But ICJ’s opinion adds growing legal pressure.

Significance of the Opinion

• Although not legally binding, the ICJ’s advisory opinion is the most authoritative interpretation of international law on climate obligations. 
• It is expected to influence courts globally and could shape future litigation against countries and corporations for inadequate climate action.
• The ruling comes at a time when progress on climate change is faltering. 
• Many countries, particularly in the developed world, are falling short of their 2030 emission targets. 
• The ICJ’s opinion reaffirms that countries have legal obligations—not just voluntary commitments—to take meaningful climate action. 
• This strengthens the voice of vulnerable nations demanding accountability.

Implications for India and Global Climate Law

• Legal precedent for future domestic and international climate litigation.
• Empowers developing nations and SIDS in UNFCCC negotiations.
• Reinforces India’s constitutional commitment under Article 21 and Article 48A for environmental protection.
• Can strengthen judicial actions like Delhi air pollution cases, waste management PILs, and climate adaptation suits in NGT and Supreme Court.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

• Genesis: Established: In 1945 as the main judicial body of the UN. 
• Headquarter: Peace Palace, Hague, Netherlands.
• Key Function
  • Settling disputes between countries.
  • Provides advisory opinions on legal questions that have been referred to it by other authorised UN organs.
• Limitation:   Can only hear cases when requested by states
• Composition
  • 15 judges elected for 9-year terms by the UN General Assembly and Security Council
  • Judges act independently, not as government representatives
• Relevance:  Known as the "World Court", ICJ is the only international court for resolving disputes among 193 UN member states.