ICJ recognizes clean environment as a human right – a groundbreaking climate ruling

The International Court of Justice has issued a decisive statement. The world's highest court recognizes climate change as a "universal risk" for all nations and declares that all countries have a legal duty to prevent the climate crisis. At the same time, it demands the highest ambitions from United Nations (UN) member states in achieving the 1.5-degree target.

And the court makes another groundbreaking ruling: treaties on the oceans, biological diversity and ozone depletion are just as relevant as the international legal obligation to prevent significant damage to the climate and the environment.

This ruling will change the course of future climate action around the world. Oil and gas states, in particular, have so far argued that their only legal obligations are under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. The fact that they are also bound by international human rights and that the climate crisis threatens many of these rights, such as the right to a healthy and sustainable environment, has been far too neglected.

It is all the more important that the Court makes clear that the failure to protect the planet from the effects of climate change constitutes a violation of international law.

The urgency of such court rulings becomes apparent almost daily. Extreme weather events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall are increasing worldwide, greenhouse gas emissions are continuously rising, and are making the 1.5-degree target increasingly difficult to achieve. Furthermore, many countries are at risk of missing their climate targets. The German government's 2025 Climate Action Report, for example, recently concluded that the measures adopted by Germany to date are "insufficient" to achieve the 2040 and 2045 targets.

The climate crisis is and remains a global crisis. No country in the world can solve it alone. Therefore, the Court rightly emphasizes that states have an obligation to cooperate. It is negligent for the United States, as one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, to pretend that climate change does not exist. By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the United States has caused lasting damage to international cooperation.

There is one drawback to the International Court of Justice's opinion, however: It is not legally binding. This means that it ultimately amounts to nothing more than an appeal to countries' global responsibility. States could ignore the court's ruling. And as long as the authority of the world court is not recognized by all countries, the ruling is unlikely to be able to stop climate change.