These hearings will contribute to the Court's advisory opinion on the international legal responsibilities of states in relation to the climate crisis. While advisory opinions do not resolve specific conflicts between states, they provide definitive interpretations of binding law, and can be instrumental in preventive diplomacy.
Legal Consequences of Climate Harm
A central issue in the ICJ proceedings is the legal responsibility of states when they breach climate-related obligations and cause harm. These consequences may include halting harmful activities, ensuring they do not recur, and providing full reparations, such as restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction measures.
The climate crisis has led to both economic and non-economic harms, and specific actions are needed to remedy these. Reparations could extend beyond financial compensation to include measures such as phasing out fossil fuels or even debt cancellation.
Underfunded Loss and Damage
In the face of wealthy nations avoiding accountability for their historic role in the climate crisis, clarity from the ICJ on legal accountability is more urgent than ever. It took three decades for countries to agree on a fund for addressing climate harm, known as loss and damage, under UN climate negotiations. However, this fund remains severely underfunded, with contributions based on voluntary finance, rather than obligatory payments from states legally bound to compensate for climate harm.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has stressed, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mechanisms for loss and damage are not structured to fulfill states' legal obligations to remedy climate harm effectively. Moreover, COP29 failed to address the critical funding gap, announcing a new finance goal set for 2035 without guaranteeing the funds or ensuring they are grants-based, and without a designated amount for loss and damage.
This inaction is a continuation of a pattern in which powerful polluting countries prioritize their own economic interests over the human rights of communities most affected by climate change.
A Matter of Obligation, Not Charity
The ICJ now has a unique chance to affirm that accountability and reparations for climate damage are matters of obligation and justice, not charity. Its opinion could reshape global climate law and policy, empowering climate-vulnerable nations with the legal tools needed to strengthen their positions in climate negotiations.
The ICJ's opinion could pave the way for holding polluters accountable, particularly in areas such as loss and damage and climate finance, both within negotiation rooms and beyond. If the loss and damage fund continues to underperform, states and communities may seek redress outside the UNFCCC, guided by the forthcoming ICJ advisory opinion.
A Broader Movement for Justice
At the same time, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) is considering state duties to guarantee the right to redress for climate harm. The IACtHR's advisory opinion, expected in early 2025, could set a high legal standard for climate reparations, drawing from its extensive jurisprudence on remedy and reparation, including in environmental cases like the La Oroya case.
International law already includes frameworks for holding states accountable, such as the law of state responsibility and human rights law, with the right to remedy and reparations firmly established. What's needed now is the robust application of these frameworks in the context of climate change.
A Crucial First Step
Without concrete remedies, climate justice and equitable multilateralism will remain hollow. International cooperation is vital, but it must be paired with tangible policies that address harm and hold the responsible parties accountable. The cycle of continuing harm and refusal to repair must be broken.
Climate-vulnerable states and communities have long emphasized the importance of redress for climate damage. The ICJ hearings will put the issue at the forefront, offering a platform for major polluters and climate-vulnerable nations to present their cases. Civil society will closely monitor how states' interventions in the courtroom align with their claims of climate and human rights leadership.
While all eyes are on the ICJ, the fight for climate accountability extends beyond the Court. Legal clarity will be a first step, but law alone cannot resolve the deep-rooted structural injustices at the heart of the climate crisis. The true hope lies in the growing movement of people—across generations, campaigns, and negotiations—who are demanding justice for both people and the planet, both in the courts and in the streets.