Johannesburg, 24 July 2025: Yesterday, the the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued unanimous conclusions in a historical advisory opinion detailing States’ obligations in the context of climate change. The landmark opinion, considered a victory for the climate justice movement and countries facing dire climate change impacts, paves the way for greater accountability towards safeguarding human rights, the right to a healthy environment, access to reparations, and affirms the need to phase out fossil fuels.
“This is a huge victory demonstrating the power of the climate justice movement and global south activists. The advisory shows that when states are spinless in the face of rapacious polluters and money hungry climate criminals, the law still has a backbone. The opinion makes clear that states have a legal duty to prevent climate harm, protect human rights, and hold polluters accountable,” said, Katherine Robinson, NJ’s Head of Policy & Advocacy.
Human rights, defenders and the power of international law
The court’s statements about the consequences of increasing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, and their impacts on vulnerable populations, underscores its recognition that the protection of the environment is indivisible from the realisation of human rights.
“The Judges affirmed that the enjoyment of human rights is contingent on mitigating climate change and ensuring the right to a healthy environment. This is a powerful indictment upon states reneging on their climate commitments, and governments and companies complicit in repressing, criminalising and attacking land and environmental defenders fighting to safeguard their land, biodiversity and the climate. This opinion plays and important role in expanding environmental accountability, shifting the responsibility to where it is needed most, and protecting defenders and their right to speak out,” explains Farida Aliwa, NJ’s Executive Director.
Although the ICJ is the world’s highest court and advisory opinions are statements invoking binding international law, bearing substantial legal weight, our optimism is cautious. “The power of international law hangs in the balance, since we are witnessing ongoing flagrant human rights violations given the fossil fuel backed genocide and ecocide in Gaza. Unfortunately, the gravitas of ICJ opinions, rulings and international law more broadly is gravely undermined by this impunity,” warns Katherine Robinson, NJ’s Head of Policy and Advocacy.
Fossil fuels, liability and States’ responsibilities
A significant outcome was the court’s explicit connection of state obligations in relation fossil fuels. Under the opinion, states are obligated to prevent climate harm and failing to curb the primary driver- production and use of fossil fuels– could violate international law.
The court highlighted that states have an obligation under international law to safeguard their citizens from the harmful actions committed by private parties. This duty imposes on them a further positive obligation to use any means at their disposal to circumvent actions occurring within their territory, or in any area under their jurisdiction, that may cause significant damage to the environment of another State or areas beyond its national control.
The opinion also reiterated the important principles of equity, historical accountability, and common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities, placing urgent and commensurate action on global north states most responsible for the crisis – having already overshot their carbon budget.
Although the African continent is only responsible for 4% of global emissions, the opinion made clear that all governments are responsible for holding accountable companies operating in their jurisdictions, and that approving new oil and gas licences, granting subsidies could be a breach of a country’s obligations.
“African states are not off the hook. Governments in Africa must also play their part instead of increasingly green lighting fossil fuel projects contributing the crisis, when we need to be doing everything to lower emissions, and invest in renewable energy and a just transition that ensures energy access and human rights for African citizens,” says Allan Basajjasubi, NJ’s Senior Affirming Rights Officer.
Remedy and reparations
The ICJ opinion framed state inaction or complicity in fossil fuel activity as a wrongful act, which strengthens the legal basis for claims seeking reparations, loss and damage funding, and justice for those bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. On the critical issue of reparations, the court affirmed that, “A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is obligated to make full reparation for the damage caused by that act”, meaning countries facing extreme weather events, and citizens living and dying on the frontlines of climate change have a right to recourse, remedy and compensation.
Nomasango Masiye-Moyo, NJ’s Environmental Lawyers Collective Co-ordinator says that for Africa, the statements by the ICJ on reparations mean that vulnerable citizens can seek remedy for ecological destruction, illegal eviction, dead crops and disappearing marine and animal life. “Whilst reparations have long been considered customary international law, the courts statements sketch a judicially acknowledged pathway for compensation, rehabilitation and restitution. We hope that the courts findings will embolden many African communities and lawyers around the continent, to fiercely seek accountability and justice for harms done in their communities, historically and in the future.”
African Advisory Petition and climate litigation
With the ICJ’s landmark opinion setting a global precedent, the stage is now set for Africa to assert its leadership in the fight for climate justice. The continent must seize this chance to not only secure justice for its people but also to lead the way toward a sustainable and equitable future for all.
The African Climate Platform—a coalition of African civil society organizations, of which Natural Justice is part- has filed a petition before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), and believes the ICJ ruling will leverage their pursuit for accountability and climate justice in Africa.
“The African advisory opinion petition is an effort to secure the first continent-wide legal clarification on how African states must address climate change as a human rights issue under the African Charter. This is important because it centres Africa’s legal voice in the global climate justice movement and offers a powerful tool for communities to demand accountability and protection. The recent ICJ opinion reinforces this petition by affirming that states have legal obligations under international law to prevent climate harm, uphold human rights, and act on the best available science—specifically referencing the IPCC. These findings align closely with our petition and bolster its legal and moral imperative,” explains NJ’s Head of Programmes, Lucien Limacher.
Nomasango Masiye-Moyo adds, “By grounding climate obligations in established international law principles, the ICJ’s opinion provides new avenues for litigation, advocacy, and international pressure especially for vulnerable countries and communities harmed by major emitting states. It provides a good background for the African Court’s own assessment of key questions related to duties of State in the context of the vulnerabilities of African states affected by the climate crisis.”
