Countries can sue each other over climate change-ICJ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has delivered a landmark advisory opinion, confirming that countries can be held legally accountable for their contributions to climate change, including past emissions.

The landmark ruling, though non-binding, could significantly reshape how climate action and accountability are pursued across the world. It’s a moment of triumph for vulnerable nations and communities who’ve long felt sidelined in international climate talks.

Delivering the opinion at The Hague, Judge Iwasawa Yuji noted that while pinpointing precise responsibility for climate damage will be complex, states have legal obligations to protect the climate system under international law — whether or not they are part of the Paris Agreement.

The case was initiated by a coalition of Pacific Island law students back in 2019, concerned that their homelands were sinking under rising seas with no legal recourse. Their campaign led to the ICJ hearing, backed by countries like Vanuatu and the Marshall Islands — places already grappling with climate-induced displacement and destruction.

Pacific Islander Flora Vano echoed his sentiment, calling the ruling “a recognition of our suffering, our resilience, and our right to a future.”

The court made clear that governments may be required to provide compensation for damage linked to climate change — including destroyed infrastructure and forced migration — provided such losses can be directly linked to emissions. Though proving causation will require case-by-case analysis, climate lawyers say the precedent has now been set.

Significantly, the ruling also affirms that nations can be held responsible for emissions from companies within their borders. This includes when governments provide subsidies to fossil fuel industries or greenlight new oil and gas projects, potentially breaching their international duties.

Developed countries like the UK had opposed the case, arguing existing frameworks like the Paris Agreement were sufficient. However, the ICJ rejected that stance, stating that broader international obligations apply — even to countries outside the Paris accord.

Legal experts say the ICJ opinion could now be cited in domestic and regional courts worldwide, unlocking new legal avenues for countries seeking reparations. While only nations under the ICJ’s jurisdiction can be directly sued there, lawyers suggest lawsuits could still be brought in national courts, including in countries like the US.

Jennifer Robinson, barrister for the Pacific nations, called the ruling “a game-changer” that empowers climate-vulnerable states to demand justice.

Still, enforcement remains uncertain. As with all ICJ opinions, implementation depends on political will.