The Supreme Court has sought replies from the Centre and all states on a plea demanding urgent nationwide guidelines to prevent rising heatwave deaths, especially among unorganised workers and children. The matter will be heard in four weeks.
New Delhi: Today, on July 23, the Hague: In a historic development, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest court of the United Nations, announced on Wednesday that if countries do not take enough steps to protect the environment from climate change, they might be breaking international law.
This was said during the court’s advisory opinion in a case that could change the way international climate laws are seen across the world.
The court, located in The Hague, said that climate change is an “urgent and existential” threat to all of humanity.
ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa stated,
“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act.”
This means if a government does not act to stop or reduce the harmful effects of climate change, it could be legally held responsible.
The ICJ also mentioned that countries suffering because of climate change — like through rising sea levels or extreme weather — could get reparations or compensation.
But how much they are owed must be looked at individually. The court said it must be determined on a “case by case” basis.
This legal opinion is not binding, meaning it is not compulsory for countries to follow it, but it is still very important. The court’s opinion runs over 500 pages and is being seen as a major step in international climate law.
The court added that a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is a basic human right. By declaring this, it could open the door for future legal actions at both the international and national levels. It can also influence agreements between countries, as well as investment-related legal decisions.
The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, a small island state that is highly vulnerable to rising sea levels. It had the support of more than 130 countries.
All member countries of the United Nations, including major polluting nations like the United States and China, are part of the ICJ.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court exempted lawyers from wearing gowns
Outside the courtroom, many climate activists gathered with banners. One large banner read: “Courts have spoken.
The law is clear. States must ACT NOW.” The courtroom, famously called the Great Hall of Justice, was filled with people, including lawyers, diplomats, and journalists.
This legal opinion came after years of effort by island nations like Vanuatu. They have been asking the international community for legal support as their countries are at risk of disappearing due to rising seas.
In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly had requested the ICJ to give this advisory opinion, which has now become a major moment in international law.
A group of 15 judges of the ICJ had to answer two main legal questions: What are countries required to do under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans? And second, what are the legal consequences for countries that do not take enough action and end up causing harm to the climate and the environment?
During the hearings, Vanuatu’s Attorney General Arnold Kiel Loughman told the court,
“The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line.”
This shows how serious the situation is for island nations.
According to data, the global sea level rose by around 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches) from 2013 to 2023, and in parts of the Pacific, the rise is even higher.
Scientists have also said that the Earth has warmed up by 1.3 degrees Celsius since the time before industries began heavily burning fossil fuels. This warming is mainly caused by human activities like burning coal, oil, and gas.
Vanuatu is not the only nation at risk. Many small island countries in the South Pacific are facing the same threat.
Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, Ralph Regenvanu, told the Associated Press,
“The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough.”
Because of this opinion by the ICJ, climate activists now have a stronger legal tool. They could even sue their own governments if they do not act on climate change.
Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer from the Center for International Environmental Law, explained,
“What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It’s not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots.”
However, some major fossil fuel-producing countries like the United States and Russia are against the idea that the court should force countries to reduce their emissions.
They argue that it should be a political and not a legal matter. But the United Nations Secretary-General recently told the Associated Press that those who continue to depend on fossil fuels might face huge financial losses.
He warned,
“Those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it,”
This opinion is a big win for island nations. It comes after other courts have also recognized the responsibility of governments in climate change.
For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recently ruled that countries must not only stop harming the environment but must also take steps to restore it.
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights said that countries must do more to protect people from climate change.
Going back to 2019, the Netherlands’ Supreme Court gave the first major win to climate activists when it said that protection from the harmful effects of climate change is a human right, and that the government has a duty to protect its people.
This ICJ opinion adds strong moral and legal weight to the growing demand for climate action worldwide. While not legally enforceable, the court’s statements can help influence laws, shape negotiations, and push governments to act faster and more responsibly.
Case Details :
ADIL SHARFUDDIN vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000653 / 2025
Click Here to Read More Reports on Heatwave
