Latest News

The World Court's climate opinion puts the heat on governments

Lawyers are citing the landmark opinion of the United Nations highest court that states governments must protect climate, in courtrooms. They say this strengthens their legal arguments against companies and countries.

Last Wednesday, the International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) laid out that states have a duty to limit the harm caused by greenhouse gases, and to regulate the private sector. The court said that failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could be a transnationally wrongful act. It also found that international treaties, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement for climate change, should be considered legal binding.

The court did not name the United States but said that countries not party to the United Nations Climate Treaty should still protect climate in accordance with human rights law and international customary law.

On the last day of hearings in a case regarding whether or not planning permits for wind turbines should prioritize climate concerns over rural views, lawyers representing a windfarm handed out copies of the World Court's opinion to seven judges of Ireland's Supreme Court.

The Irish court has not yet announced its decision.

Coolglass Wind Farm lawyer Alan Roberts said that the opinion would strengthen his client's argument, which is that Ireland's obligations in terms of climate change must be considered when considering domestic laws.

The ICJ opinion is not binding but it has legal weight if national courts use it as a benchmark in their legal deliberations. This is what most U.N. member states do.

It is becoming more likely that the United States will be an exception, as it has never been clear about whether ICJ decisions are binding on domestic courts. Under U.S. president Donald Trump, all climate regulations have been scrapped.

Lawyers said that not all U.S. state are skeptical about climate change. However, they expected to see the opinion cited in U.S. court cases. Lawyers say that the ICJ's opinion will have the greatest impact in upcoming climate cases in Europe. Recent examples of governments respecting court rulings include Britain reopening negotiations late last year with Mauritius to return the Chagos Islands to the Indian Ocean. The ICJ had ruled in 2019 that London should relinquish control.

BONAIRE VERSUS NETHERLANDS

In a Dutch case that will be heard in October, Greenpeace Netherlands, and eight Dutch citizens from Bonaire, an island low-lying in the Caribbean, are arguing that the Netherlands climate plan does not do enough to protect Bonaire against the rising sea level. The World Court stated that national climate plans should be "stringent", and in line with the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7% Fahrenheit) over the pre-industrial standard. The court said that countries should be held accountable for their fair share of historic emissions. In the hearings at the ICJ last December that led to this week's opinion many wealthy countries including Norway, Saudi Arabia and The United States argued that national climate plans are not binding.

Lucy Maxwell is the co-director of Climate Litigation Network. She said, "The court said (...) That's not right."

In the Bonaire case the Dutch government argues that a climate plan will suffice. Louise Fournier of Greenpeace International said that the plaintiffs argued it would not reach the 1.5C threshold, and that the Netherlands should do its part to keep global heating below this.

Fournier, a Bonaire resident, said that the ICJ's opinion would be of great help.

"URGENT AND PRESENT THREAT"

The ICJ opinion stated that climate change is an "urgent existential threat" citing decades worth of peer-reviewed scientific research. However, skepticism has increased in certain quarters led by the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to a document obtained by, may be questioning the research that underpins mainstream climate science. It is also preparing to revise its scientific determination about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions.

Jonathan Martel, of the U.S. firm Arnold and Porter, represents clients in the industry on environmental issues.

He said that a court of law could challenge the EPA's new regulations, given the fact that a global court had deemed climate change science to be unambiguous and settled.

He said that this could create an obstacle for those who advocate against regulatory actions based on the scientific uncertainty about climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. EPA's changes will affect its regulations for tailpipe emissions of vehicles running on fossil fuel.

Legal teams are examining the impact of this ruling on lawsuits against fossil fuel producers and governments who regulate them.

The World Court stated that the states can be held responsible for the actions of private actors who are under their control. It specifically mentioned the licensing and subventioning of fossil fuel production.

The French NGO, Notre Affaire a Tous (whose case against TotalEnergies will be heard in 2026) expected that the advisory opinion would strengthen their arguments.

This opinion will strengthen our case, because it states (...) the granting of new licenses to new oil-and-gas projects could be a constitutionally and internationally wrongful act", said Paul Mougeolle.

TotalEnergies has not responded to our request for comment. (Reporting and editing by Barbara Lewis; Stephanie van den Berg, Alison Withers. Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington.

(source: Reuters)