The International Court of Justice says failure to tackle climate change risks breaking international law. Australia is on notice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has finally handed down its long-awaited Advisory Opinion. The Court found that international law requires states to prevent significant environmental harm, including from greenhouse gas emissions, and to cooperate globally to tackle the climate crisis. Failure to do so can have consequences, including reparations to the countries and communities that suffer the worst impacts. 

I can’t overstate what a massive moment this is. The opinion was unanimous and followed the most widely participated legal process in the Court’s history, with input from over 90 states and organisations. It’s the result of years of tireless advocacy by Vanuatu, other Pacific Island governments and civil society, led by Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, whose persistent and passionate advocacy brought this case to the world stage. Their vital role must not be overshadowed by legal commentary.

The Court was clear: the science is settled, the threat is existential, and the law is catching up. 

“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court President, Yuji Iwasawa, said during the hearing.

"The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include … full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,” the Court wrote.

It affirmed that environmental protection is tied to human rights, and that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is part of international law.

"A clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right," the Court found — and governments must prevent harm not just from their own emissions but also from the emissions of corporations they license or subsidise.

A moment of reckoning for Australia

The ruling isn’t legally binding, but it carries huge moral and legal weight, especially for a country like Australia that likes to talk about the rules-based international order. The ICJ has put Australia squarely on notice.

Australia is one of the world’s biggest per capita emitters and largest fossil fuel exporters. Successive Australian governments have, and continue to, proactively support the expansion of the fossil fuel industry and generously subsidise coal, oil and gas. At the same time Australian government officials talk about our Pacific neighbours as family. Our family has been facing rising seas and existential threats to their homes, cultures and sovereignty.

The ICJ’s opinion explicitly addressed this, stating that a country’s obligations extend to private actors operating under its jurisdiction or control, and that governments are responsible for the emissions of companies they licence, enable or subsidise.

The court’s words strike at the heart of Australia’s long-standing, bi-partisan support for the fossil fuel industry – through tax breaks, public financing, and political support – even as it speaks of regional leadership and respect for the international rules-based order.

Contradictions at home and abroad

The ruling comes just a week after an Australian court dismissed a case brought by Torres Strait Islanders, finding the government has no legal duty of care to protect them from climate change.

And yet, in that decision, the court acknowledged that Torres Strait communities are already being harmed by climate impacts, and that Australia’s emissions targets fall short of the best available science.

The contrast between that ruling and the ICJ’s opinion is stark. On the global stage, there is growing clarity: governments cannot continue supporting the fossil fuel industry while claiming to respect international law.

Australia has long invoked the importance of the international rules-based order — in relation to Ukraine, the South China Sea, and more. But now, that same order is pointing the finger squarely at us.

A chance for hope — and change

For people suffering climate harm around the world, this ruling is a moment for celebration and offers hope. It reaffirms that international law is on their side, and that states can no longer dodge responsibility.

If Australia wants to be taken seriously as a global climate leader, and a legitimate COP31 host, it must act swiftly. That means ending fossil fuel subsidies, lifting its ambition, and aligning its actions with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.

We owe it to our own people and our Pacific family. We owe it to the science – and now, we owe it to the law.

Next
Next

A bleak future in the Torres Strait and a test for global climate justice