U.N. top court rules a healthy environment is a human right

In a historic decision, the International Court of Justice delivered a sweeping advisory opinion stating that countries have a legal obligation under international law to protect the planet from climate change, and that failing to do so could constitute an internationally wrongful act.

The ruling on Wednesday, while non-binding, is considered a significant turning point in international climate law and human rights. It stems from a sustained campaign led by Vanuatu and supported by over 130 U.N. member nations, and marks the first time the world court has comprehensively addressed the legal dimensions of the climate crisis.

The advisory opinion, sought by the U.N. General Assembly in 2023 following years of lobbying by vulnerable Pacific island nations like Vanuatu, addresses two key questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for countries that fail to meet these obligations?

In its more than 500-page opinion, the U.N.’s highest judicial body declared from the Peace Palace in The Hague that a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human right. ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said that "greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities and have cross-border effects," underscoring the "urgent and existential threat posed by climate change."

The court further indicated that countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for damages suffered, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. This opens the door for other legal actions, including nations holding each other accountable at the ICJ and domestic lawsuits.

The ruling is seen as a major victory for small island nations disproportionately affected by rising sea levels and intensifying climate disasters, despite having contributed the least to the crisis. Vanuatu's Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu emphasized that "the agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough," and that this opinion provides a "path forward."

While the advisory opinion does not directly mandate emissions reductions, legal experts believe it provides a robust legal framework that governments can no longer ignore, potentially shaping future climate negotiations and policies.

It also aligns with recent advisory opinions from other international courts, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which have similarly affirmed states' obligations to address climate change as a human rights issue.

Major greenhouse gas emitters, including the United States and Russia, have historically opposed the idea of legally binding emissions reductions through international courts. However, ICJ's pronouncement signifies a growing legal consensus on the urgent need for robust climate action grounded in international law and human rights.

"It is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations," Vanuatu's Prime Minister Jotham Napat said ahead of the ruling, adding that small island developing countries have acted "not out of fear, but from a place of courage, principle, and conviction that justice must prevail, and that the law must serve those most at risk."

The ruling comes just ahead of COP30, the 30th U.N. climate summit to be held at Belém, Brazil, in November. Climate campaigners hope it will inject fresh momentum and legal urgency into negotiations, potentially leading to more ambitious climate action plans submitted by countries under the Paris accord.

It is also expected to bolster climate justice arguments in other international discussions, such as those concerning a global plastics treaty and a potential fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.