July 24, 2025 will undoubtedly be remembered in history books, much like December 12, 2015 — the date on which the Paris Agreement was adopted under the framework of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21). That agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016 and today counts 196 signatory states, marked a key milestone in global climate governance.
Now, on July 24, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, issued a unanimous advisory opinion at the request of the UN General Assembly (submitted in March 2023). In this landmark opinion, the Court affirms that states bound by international norms on climate change are under a legal obligation to take concrete measures aligned with the spirit of those agreements — namely, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, this ruling opens the possibility for states to initiate legal proceedings against one another in the event of non-compliance. At Human Rights Global House (HRGH), we see this as a historic breakthrough, not only in climate justice but also in the advancement of human rights, as it reinforces the undeniable connection between climate change and human survival.
It is evident that the fundamental goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement have not been met. These include the substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase this century to well below 2°C, ideally to 1.5°C, as well as the provision of financial support to developing countries to mitigate climate impacts, strengthen resilience, and build adaptive capacity. The failure to meet these targets rests squarely on the shoulders of the states that signed the agreement yet have not done nearly enough to fulfill their commitments.
While advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding, they carry significant moral and jurisprudential weight. This ruling is a stark reminder that states must act in accordance with the agreements they have voluntarily entered into. It is expected that national and international courts will refer to this advisory opinion, especially as there are currently around 3,000 ongoing climate-related lawsuits across approximately 60 countries, all underpinned by the foundational principle of good faith in international law.
The Court unequivocally stated that climate change constitutes a universal existential risk, caused unambiguously by human activity, and that member states have a legal duty to prevent it. Regarding legal consequences, the Court noted that failing to meet these obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act. States responsible must cease such acts or omissions, provide assurances against repetition where appropriate, and offer full reparations — including restitution, compensation, and satisfaction — to injured parties.
Importantly, these obligations are not derived solely from multilateral treaties. The Court emphasized that they also form part of customary international law, and are therefore applicable to all states, regardless of whether they are parties to the main climate agreements.
To further underscore the issue, Judge Yuji Iwasawa, President of the Court, stated that greenhouse gas emissions are “unequivocally caused by human activities” and have cross-border effects.
The Court’s opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly in April 2023, concluded that international law obliges states to prevent significant environmental harm by exercising due diligence. States must use all means at their disposal to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause significant damage to the climate system or to other components of the environment. Additionally, they have a duty to cooperate in good faith to prevent such harm.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the opinion as “historic”, emphasizing that it “makes clear” that all states are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system. He hailed the decision as “a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of youth to drive change.”
The contemporary world is, for many people, an increasingly insecure place — threatened by multiple and overlapping crises. Prolonged conflicts, violent unrest, natural disasters, persistent poverty, pandemics, and economic downturns impose severe hardship and erode the foundations of peace, stability, and sustainable development. These crises are complex, and often result in intersecting forms of human insecurity. When such vulnerabilities overlap, insecurity can escalate exponentially, pervading every aspect of life, destroying communities, and crossing national borders.
As stated in UN General Assembly Resolution 66/290, human security is “an approach that helps Member States identify and address widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood, and dignity of their people.” The resolution calls for people-centered, comprehensive, context-specific, and prevention-oriented responses that reinforce both protection and empowerment.
At Human Rights Global House/D Institute, we see this ruling as another crucial step — and a major victory — toward the realization of a more just world in terms of human rights. We celebrate this moment with hope, determination, and renewed commitment.
The Court gives its Advisory Opinion and responds to the questions posed by the General Assembly
