Environmental (Commonwealth Union)_ In a historic shift that could reshape global climate politics, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that states are entitled to sue governments for climate loss damages on their list, compensation from past greenhouse gas emissions. The historic advisory opinion was delivered in The Hague on Wednesday and is a hard-won victory for vulnerable Pacific Island nations whose law students originally wrote up the case in 2019 as rising seas threatened to consume their homelands.
“This makes all the difference,” said Tongan law student Siosiua Veikune, co-author of the case, his voice trembling with emotion outside court. “The world’s highest court has validated our suffering and our right to fight for survival.” The ruling allows nations disproportionately hit by climate disasters, like Vanuatu, the world’s most vulnerable nation to extreme weather, to seek financial reparations in international and domestic courts.
Although non-binding, the decision carries enormous political and moral authority. The ICJ solidly dismissed the position of established nations like the UK that existing climate deals were sufficient, deciding instead that inadequate climate action constitutes a breach of international law against non-parties to the Paris Agreement as well. Perhaps most significantly, the court decided that subsidizing fossil fuels by subsidies or granting new licenses by the state may breach legal obligations to protect the climate system.
“This decision tears up the ancient rulebook,” remarked climate lawyer Joie Chowdhury. “It affirms that climate harm has a legal solution and that those who inflict it, states or corporations, can be held accountable.” The Marshall Islands quickly cited the $9 billion adaptation charge; they’re incurring an unsustainable price tag for a nation that emits less than 0.00001% of total greenhouse gas emissions.
The practical implications of the decision remain problematic. Climate damage liability will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis through evidence of emissions-inducing impacts, a tall task given climate change’s diffuse nature. And while the UK is within ICJ jurisdiction, the US and China are not. Still, legal experts note the opinion can be invoked in any court of law in the world, potentially triggering perhaps a torrent of climate litigation.
As Pacific Islanders were rejoicing at what Vanuatu’s Flora Vano called “a victory for all frontline communities,” the US’s response underlined future battles. A White House official reiterated President Trump’s “America First” message, signalling against climate responsibility. Meanwhile, the British government said it would take time to weigh the opinion but insisted that existing agreements were adequate, a line directly contested by the court.
For vulnerable nations, the ruling is vindication and a powerful new tool. “We didn’t make this crisis, but we’re paying with our homes and cultures,” said Vano. “Now we have the law on our side.” As the legal fallout unfolds, one thing is clear: the era of climate impunity may be at an end, and the fight for climate justice has entered new ground.
