The International Court of Justice ruled that countries may sue each other over climate change, and the real winners are the Caribbean island states.

Credit: Jeroen Bouman

---

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded that states harmed by human-caused climate change may be entitled to ‘reparations’

• The case at the ICJ was initiated by a group of law students from low-lying Pacific islands, which were the most susceptible to the rising sea level caused by climate change. 

• This unprecedented ruling might benefit small island states in battling climate change and holding the culprits accountable

HOW WAS THE CASE DECIDED?

• This two-year process involved the judges defining the scope and meaning of the broad questions put forth by the UN General Assembly

• The ICJ was tasked with applying international law and arriving at an advisory opinion

WHAT IS AN ADVISORY OPINION?

• It is legal advice provided by ICJ upon the request of the UN or a specialised agency, per Article 96 of the UN Charter

• Advisory opinions are generally not legally binding, but can still shape and guide the development of international law 

• According to the ICJ’s official website, advisory opinions carry ‘great legal weight and moral authority’, albeit being legally non-binding

THE ADVISORY OPINION IN THIS CASE

• It states that nations can be held legally accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions

• That includes any historic emissions, not focusing merely on the future 

• Nations can be held accountable by way of fines, although the amount is not yet clarified

OTHER EXISTING CLIMATE AGREEMENTS

• The UK, with other developed countries, attempted to argue that the existing climate agreements (e.g., the Paris Agreement) are adequate and no further legal obligations should be imposed

However, this argument was rejected by the ICJ

---

Pestle Analysis

Political

The relationship between the Caribbean island states and other developed countries such as the UK might be worsened. This is due to the potential claims the former might attempt to bring against the latter due to their high greenhouse gas emission.

Pressure can also be imposed on countries to follow the advice and emit fewer harmful gases.

Economical

States can be fined due to their over-emission. This could potentially cost billions of pounds, leading to less government spending and more borrowing, deepening any governmental debt.

Another point is that international corporations might be forced to reduce their emissions, leading to a loss in revenue or an increase in cost. Either way, its profit will fall. That could lead to potential unemployment or less corporate tax being handed out.

However, the Caribbean island states will benefit economically from a potential reduction in emissions, as less would be spent on preventive measures against natural disasters brought about by global warming.

Social

This judgment illuminated the problems of global warming on smaller islands and their human rights implications. It empowered the island states to battle developed countries with trillions of funding.

Firms will no doubt focus more on their ESG initiatives to stay in line with the judgment.

Technological

It encourages and perhaps forces technological advancements to head in the direction of environmental friendliness. While this is good in the long run, companies and governments might struggle to find a short-term solution.

However, if governments pledge higher subsidies to green companies, it might accelerate the development and cut the cost of inactivity.

Legal

It sets a historic legal precedent; states may be found in breach of international law if they fail to act on emissions. However, it is important to note that an Advisory Opinion is not legally binding.

The judgment can also lead to increased litigation between countries, involving more law firms. In addition to litigation, law firms can also conduct due diligence work on compliance.

Environmental

The ICJ’s advisory opinion reinforces that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a fundamental human right. This sets a clear expectation that states must actively reduce emissions and prevent environmental harm.

It strengthens the global legal framework for holding both governments and corporations accountable for activities that degrade ecosystems or accelerate climate change, positioning environmental protection as a core legal duty under international law.