Cyclone damage in Vanuatu. Credit: UNICEF/ReliefWeb
By Tanka Dhakal
THE HAGUE, Jul 30 2025 – Legal minds in international law are trying to interpret the scope and impact of the landmark advisory opinion on climate change by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where it said that states have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment.
The court ruling says that the states have a responsibility to cooperate internationally to prevent the impact of climate change. It didn’t directly link climate change and the health crisis but recognized the health aspect through the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” Organizations advocating for the health-related actions in the climate change discussion are saying the court opinion affirmed “climate crisis as health crisis.”
Yamide Dagnet,
- All countries have an obligation to address climate change under international and customary laws, beyond their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
- It provides legal leverage to seek reparations from major emitters, including from the fossil fuel industry.
- Small islands will keep their statehood if their land disappears due to sea level rise—as illustrated by the Rising Nation Initiative, Global Centre for Climate Mobility—thus boosting their efforts to preserve their sovereignty, rights, and cultural heritage with dignity.
Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director at the Global Climate and Health Alliance said the court has delivered a historic affirmation that the climate crisis is a health crisis-and failure to act is a failure to protect life
“This ruling confirms that governments and corporations have a legal duty to prevent further harm, uphold the right to health, and safeguard future generations,” she said in a statement. “From deadly heat and toxic air to disease and displacement, the Court’s message is clear-human health is not collateral damage.”
The ICJ issued its ruling on July 23 in response to a United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution led by Vanuatu, the small island nation in the Pacific, which knocked on the ICJ’s door asking for an advisory opinion on the obligation of the states to address climate change and its legal consequences.
Following a long hearing last December, the ICJ delivered its first opinion on climate change. “The case was unlike any that have previously come before the court,” President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa said while reading the court’s unanimous advisory opinion. “This case was not simply a legal problem but concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
Pivotal moment for climate and health justice
While addressing planetary health, the court laid out the case for the impact of human-induced climate change and its impact on growing health concerns. In its ruling the court took note of participants discussing the existence of a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
During the hearing of the case in December Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus testified to the court and said climate change is fundamentally a health crisis. “The climate crisis is among the most significant health challenges facing humanity today,” he said during his testimony to the court.
Experts believe that health workers and advocates now have powerful legal backing to demand bold, science-based climate action rooted in justice. They are still reviewing the court’s opinion to make a more nuanced analysis and said it marks a pivotal moment for climate and health justice. Shweta Narayan, Campaign lead at the Global Climate and Health Alliance, said the ruling affirms the urgency of comprehensive, rights-based action that addresses both immediate health harms and the root causes of the crisis.
“This represents a major step forward in reframing the climate crisis as fundamentally a health crisis-and in mobilizing the legal, scientific, and political tools needed to respond,” she adds.
“This ruling strengthens the moral mandate to place health at the center of climate negotiations, including in adaptation, loss and damage, and climate finance frameworks.”
The court used the human rights approach to address the health aspect of climate change in its ruling. In a rapid legal analysis, Vanuatu, who led the campaign for the opinion, also welcomed the ruling.
“The opinion integrates international human rights law, identifying the rights to life, health, an adequate standard of living, and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as directly threatened by climate change,” the Vanuatu Climate Justice Program said in a statement. “It affirms that environmental protection is a precondition for their enjoyment.”
Dagnet added that it demonstrated the power of activism.
“The students of Vanuatu dared to dream big and challenge the status quo, and it paid off with what could end up being one of the most important milestones in the global climate fight. I am thrilled at the landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision to validate some of the most ambitious climate priorities championed by vulnerable states over the last 50 years.”
IPS UN Bureau Report
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
Bahraini Dinar Exchange Rate