In what has been described as a landmark advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice on July 2025, declared that all countries have a legal obligation to protect and prevent harm to the climate.
Created as part of the United Nations in 1945, the court affirmed that countries must uphold existing international laws related to climate change and, if they fail to act, could be held responsible for damage to communities and the environment.
The opinion opens a door for future claims by countries seeking reparations for climate-related harm. But while the ruling is a big global story, its legal effect on the U.S. is less clear. We study climate policies, law and solutions. Here’s what you need to know about the ruling and its implications.
The ruling resulted from years of grassroots and youth-led organizing by Pacific Islanders. Supporters have called it “a turning point for frontline communities everywhere.”
Read also: Report shows PR firm working for Shell wins COP30 media contract
Small island states like Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Barbados and others across the Pacific and Caribbean are among the most vulnerable to climate change, yet they have contributed little to global emissions.
For many of them, sea-level rise poses an existential threat. Some Pacific atolls sit just 1 to 2 meters above sea level and are slowly disappearing as waters rise. Saltwater intrusion threatens drinking water supplies and crops.
Their economies depend on tourism, agriculture and fishing, all sectors easily disrupted by climate change. For example, coral reefs are bleaching more often and dying due to ocean warming and acidification, undermining fisheries, marine biodiversity and economic sectors such as tourism.
When disasters hit, the cost of recovery often forces these countries to take on debt. Climate change also undermines their credit ratings and investor confidence, making it harder to get the money to finance adaptive measures.
Story was adapted from the conversation.
