Report on the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and its Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous and landmark advisory opinion clarifying the legal obligations of States concerning climate change. This opinion significantly strengthens the international legal framework for climate action, directly reinforcing the objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action). The Court established that States’ obligations are not confined to climate-specific treaties but extend across customary international law, human rights law, and the law of the sea. The ruling provides a robust legal basis for holding States accountable for their contributions to climate change, thereby advancing SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and promoting global cooperation as envisioned in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Background of the Advisory Opinion

The proceedings were initiated by a United Nations General Assembly resolution, stemming from a campaign led by Vanuatu and other climate-vulnerable nations. The request asked the ICJ to clarify two primary questions:

1. States’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system (Question A).
2. The legal consequences for States that have caused significant harm to the climate system (Question B).

The Court’s unanimous adoption of the opinion underscores its legal and moral authority, providing critical guidance for international negotiations, including future Conferences of the Parties (COPs), and domestic legal procedures. This consensus strengthens the role of international institutions in addressing global challenges, a core tenet of SDG 16.

Analysis of State Obligations (Question A) and Alignment with SDGs

Integrated Legal Framework for Climate Action

The ICJ rejected the lex specialis argument, which posited that climate obligations are derived solely from the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The Court affirmed that these treaties operate alongside other legal regimes. This finding establishes a holistic and integrated legal foundation for climate action, ensuring that obligations under human rights law, environmental law, and customary law are applied to the climate crisis. This comprehensive approach is essential for achieving the interconnected targets of the 2030 Agenda.

Strengthening SDG 13 (Climate Action) through Binding Commitments

The Court’s opinion provides critical clarifications that reinforce SDG 13:

• Binding Temperature Goal: The ICJ held that limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C has become the primary, agreed-upon goal, superseding the previous “well below 2°C” target.
• Substantive Review of NDCs: The Court determined that States’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are not purely discretionary. They must reflect the “highest possible ambition” and, collectively, must be sufficient to achieve the 1.5°C target. This creates a substantive legal benchmark for assessing the adequacy of national climate policies.
• Due Diligence: States are obligated to act with due diligence in implementing measures to achieve their NDCs.

Customary Law and the Principle of Due Diligence

The ICJ confirmed that the customary “no-harm” rule applies to climate change, obligating all States to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm. This duty exists independently of treaty commitments. The Court emphasized that this obligation is governed by a stringent standard of due diligence and is tailored by the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). This directly supports SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring that obligations are equitable and consider the varying capacities and historical responsibilities of developed and developing nations, fostering the global partnership required by SDG 17.

Protecting Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems (SDG 14 & SDG 15)

The opinion strengthens the legal protections for global ecosystems, aligning with SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

• The Court affirmed the 2024 ITLOS advisory opinion, recognizing that greenhouse gas emissions constitute marine pollution under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
• It established that States have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment from the impacts of climate change.
• Crucially, the Court held that rising sea levels will not result in the loss of a State’s existing maritime zones, providing legal security for island nations facing existential threats and addressing issues related to climate-induced displacement.

Upholding Human Rights and Social SDGs

The ICJ explicitly linked climate change to the enjoyment of human rights, recognizing that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a precondition for human dignity. The adverse effects of climate change impair a range of rights, directly impacting the achievement of several social SDGs, including:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): through impacts on the right to an adequate standard of living and access to food.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): through impacts on the right to health.
• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): through impacts on access to water.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): through impacts on the right to housing.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): by acknowledging the disproportionate impacts on the rights of women and children.

Legal Consequences of Non-Compliance (Question B) and Implications for Global Justice

Establishing Responsibility and Causation

The Court affirmed that customary rules on State responsibility apply to climate change. It rejected arguments that the multitude of contributors makes accountability impossible. The ICJ outlined a two-part test for establishing a causal link between a State’s breach of obligations and climate-related damage, thereby creating a viable pathway for seeking reparations and strengthening the mechanisms for justice under SDG 16.

Accountability for Fossil Fuel Activities

In a significant finding, the Court addressed State responsibility for activities driving climate change. This has direct implications for SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

• States may be committing an internationally wrongful act if they fail to protect the climate system from emissions, including through the continuation of fossil fuel production, consumption, or subsidies.
• States may incur international responsibility for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from private actors within their jurisdiction.

Universal Standing to Enforce Climate Obligations (Erga Omnes Partes)

The ICJ recognized that key climate obligations, including those under the “no-harm” rule, are owed to the international community as a whole (erga omnes partes). This landmark finding means that any State, regardless of whether it is directly injured, has a legal interest in ensuring compliance and can invoke the responsibility of a breaching State. This dramatically expands the potential for international litigation and enforcement, creating a powerful tool for upholding global justice and accountability as championed by SDG 16.

Conclusion: Implications for the 2030 Agenda

The ICJ’s advisory opinion provides a powerful legal impetus for accelerated and more ambitious climate action. By clarifying that States are bound by a multi-layered web of legal obligations, the Court has closed potential loopholes and reinforced the urgency of the climate crisis. The opinion empowers climate-vulnerable States in international negotiations, such as the upcoming COP30, and provides a solid legal foundation for domestic and international climate litigation. Ultimately, this unanimous ruling strengthens the rule of law in the context of the world’s most pressing challenge, providing an indispensable legal pillar for the achievement of SDG 13 and the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The entire article revolves around clarifying States’ legal obligations to combat climate change. It directly addresses mitigation, adaptation, and the international frameworks for climate action, such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The ICJ’s opinion focuses on the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change and the need for States to take “proactive, cooperative, science-informed measures to avoid, adapt to and make reparation for global warming.”

2. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • The article explicitly connects climate change to the health of oceans. It notes that the ICJ affirmed the ITLOS advisory opinion, “recognizing that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution and trigger State obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment.” It also addresses the impact of “sea-level rise” on States’ maritime zones.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article is centered on the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a key international legal institution, in clarifying international law. It discusses “States’ climate-related obligations,” “reparations for significant climate and environmental harm,” and the application of “customary international rules about responsibility for wrongful acts.” The finding that climate obligations are erga omnes partes strengthens the legal framework for holding states accountable, thus promoting justice.

4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article highlights the importance of international cooperation and partnership. It mentions the “duty to cooperate for the protection of the environment” and the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC),” which tailors obligations based on a State’s resources. The initiative itself began as a “student-led initiative, supported by Vanuatu and a core group of States,” showcasing multi-stakeholder partnerships.

5. SDGs 2, 3, 6, and 11 (Zero Hunger, Good Health and Well-being, Clean Water and Sanitation, and Sustainable Cities and Communities)

   • The article links climate change directly to human rights, which are foundational to these SDGs. It states that the ICJ recognized that “the adverse effects of climate change may significantly impair the effective enjoyment of the human rights to health, an adequate standard of living, access to food, water and housing.” This connects climate impacts to the goals of ensuring health, food security, access to water, and safe living conditions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

   • The article discusses States’ obligations regarding their “Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs),” which are the primary instruments for integrating climate action into national plans. The Court held that States must “act with due diligence in taking measures to achieve their NDCs” and may incur responsibility if they “fail to take regulatory or legislative measures to limit GHG emissions.”

2. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds.

   • The analysis directly supports this target by citing the ICJ’s confirmation that “greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution.” This legal clarification strengthens the basis for action against this form of pollution.

3. Target 14.c: Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS.

   • The article details how the Court engaged with “the obligations entailed by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)” and affirmed the ITLOS advisory opinion, thereby reinforcing the implementation of international law for ocean protection in the context of climate change.

4. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   • The ICJ’s advisory opinion is a significant step in promoting the rule of law on climate change. The finding that climate obligations are erga omnes partes means “any State has a legal interest in avoiding climate change, and can accordingly invoke the responsibility of other States,” which dramatically expands access to justice on a global scale.

5. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

   • The Court’s rejection of the lex specialis argument is a direct endorsement of policy coherence. It found that climate treaties “apply alongside and in addition to human rights law, environmental law, and customary law,” preventing climate action from being isolated from broader sustainable development and human rights obligations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator: Global temperature increase limit

   • The article explicitly states that the Court held “that the 1.5°C threshold has now become the parties’ agreed primary temperature goal.” This serves as a clear, science-based indicator for measuring the overall success of global mitigation efforts.

2. Indicator: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

   • GHG emissions are the central cause of the problem discussed. The article mentions them repeatedly, for instance in the context of “marine pollution” and the need for States to “limit GHG emissions by private actors.” Measuring the reduction of these emissions is the primary indicator of mitigation success.

3. Indicator: Ambition and implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

   • The article notes the Court’s finding that NDCs must reflect each State’s “highest possible ambition” and that, collectively, they “must make it possible to achieve the 1.5°C temperature limit.” The content and subsequent achievement of NDCs are therefore key indicators of State compliance and progress.

4. Indicator: Fossil fuel production, consumption, and subsidies

   • The article implies that tracking fossil fuel activities is a crucial indicator of State responsibility. It states that failing to protect the climate system, “including by continuing fossil fuel production and consumption, or by granting fossil fuel exploration licenses or subsidies,” could constitute an internationally wrongful act.

5. Indicator: Sea-level rise

   • The article mentions “the loss of land and territorial sea due to sea-level rise” as a direct, measurable impact of climate change on States, particularly small island nations. This serves as a critical indicator of the physical consequences of inaction.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: justsecurity.org