countries will be held legally responsible for their climate inaction

The International Court of Justice (CIJ) has just pronounced a historic opinion on the obligations. However, of States in the fight against climate change.

This advisory opinion will have repercussions worldwide. For example, will be mobilized “in all climatic disputes, whether directed against states or large companies”, specifies Sébastien Mabile, doctor of law and lawyer at the Paris bar.

This is probably one of the best things that has happened climately for a decade. Moreover, Excellent news for climate struggle. Meanwhile, and the start of an avalanche of trials to come for many actors who continue to precipitate humanity towards a partly uninhabitable planet.

What does this opinion from the International Court of Justice say? – Countries will held legally responsible

This opinion rendered in a 140 -page document will be scrutinized by lawyers around the world in the weeks. For example, months to come … Moreover, just like governments and companies countries will held legally responsible likely to be convicted. Moreover, Like the Paris Agreement, each sentence written in this document could cost billions of dollars.

A case triggered by students from the Pacific islands. Consequently, brought to the UN by a small island state of the Pacific, Vanuatu.

This opinion is based in particular on the best state of scientific knowledge. Consequently, and in particular the 6th GIEC report as Valérie Masson-Delmotte recalls, then Vice-President of group 1 of the IPCC and who answered technical questions from the judges.

Sébastien Mabile retained 6 important points in the opinion of the CIJ that we explain and comment below.

1) Climate change constitutes an “urgent. Similarly, existential threat”, “planetary scope that jeopardizes all forms countries will held legally responsible of life and the very health of our planet”

Impossible to be clearer. Furthermore, If a person explains that climate change is not a serious problem. Consequently, a problem to deal with in the future, recall these CIJ words: An “urgent and existential threat”, “planetary scope that jeopardizes all forms of life and the very health of our planet“.

It was already a certainty for more than a decade. In addition, in particular thanks to the syntheses of the scientific literature made by the IPCC. Consequently, But the legal question is gaining ground, and governments and businesses will increasingly be held to be accountable.

2) The Court considers that under the Paris Agreement should be limited to 1.5 ° C and not 2 ° C warming – Countries will held legally responsible

Following the Paris Agreement, possible interpretations around the objective of global warming is sometimes discussed. Therefore, Is it +1.5 ° C? However, +2 ° C? Nevertheless, The countries will held legally responsible difference is gigantic and the consequences would concern billions of people. We explained the underside of this goal +1.5 ° C in this full article.

There is a risk, a real danger of poor communication and bad intentions around these two objectives +1.5 ° C and +2 ° C, certain irresponsible actors making believe that the objective is only +2 ° C of global warming.

In its opinion. the International Court of Justice puts the points on the I and recalls that the objective is indeed to limit warming to +1.5 ° C and that this should be considered as the “main objective” of the countries in terms of temperature.

A heavy sense of meaning and a victory countries will held legally responsible for many countries very vulnerable to climate change, in particular countries which are exposed to serious risks linked to the elevation of sea level to the intensification of cyclones. As of today, not in 2050. Tuvalu is, for example, planning the migration of its population to Australia. Reread well: an entire country migrates its population because of the rise of waters and climate change.

3) The fact for a State not to take the “appropriate measures to protect the climate system”. for example by granting “subsidies for fossil fuels” can constitute an “internationally illegal fact”

It is a very little publicized fact, and never reminded leaders of fossil fuels interviewed, but not only should we no longer open a new gas or oil well in the world to respect the Paris Agreement, but in addition, we should close certain wells in early operation.

This is what the 3rd part of the last countries will held legally responsible GIEC report recalled in 2022:

Cumulative CO2 emissions projected for the life of existing. planned fossil fuels infrastructure, without additional reduction, exceed Cumulated CO2 cumulative emissions in trajectories that limit warming to 1.5 ° C (> 50 %), without exceeding or with limited overtaking. This is an extremely important point: Without early closure of part of the carbon. gas and oil farms, we will exceed warming of +1.5 ° C.

The CIJ recalls here that the granting of licenses for new projects related to fossil fuels could be illegitimate. this would expose states to international disputes. It is a “game to change” for many countries. treated in progress, like the Treaty on the Charter of Energy.

When it is written that this CIJ opinion may have an impact on tens of billions of dollars, it is probably underestimating the real impact of such an opinion. Companies exporting fossil fuels will probably not let it go. but scientific facts and now international law no longer go in their direction.

4) This obligation to preserve the climate system is imposed on all states. whether or not they are parties to the relevant international agreements (“erga omnes” effect)

This obligation to preserve the climate system is imposed on all states, with an “erga omnes” effect. It is thus said that a legal decision has authority deemed Erga Omnes. enforceable against everyone, and not only with the stakeholders.

Despite the withdrawal of the United States by Donald Trump from the Paris Agreement. this means that the country 1st producer of gas and oil worldwide is affected by countries will held legally responsible this opinion of the International Court of Justice. Note that the country is not directly appointed by the CIJ in this opinion. but everyone will have understood that the opinion could refer.

5) The shortcomings of States can engage their responsibility. including for the repair of damage suffered by another State and subject to establishing the causal link

The concept of repair appears 30 times in the advice of the CIJ, and this is one of the most striking points. The subject of losses. damage (or losses and prejudices) has been under discussion for more than 30 years and the loss and damage fund was only born at COP28, with an amount much less than 1 billion, when it should be financed at hundreds of billions of dollars.

Please note. it is not because a country gives money to the loss and damage fund that it will not be subject to a countries will held legally responsible trial after this CIJ opinion. We think for example of the United Arab Emirates who had abounded the fund of $ 100 million when it was created during COP28. or Germany and France…

The difficulty will again be to establish the causal link between the losses observed and the role played by climate change. We have dedicated an entire article on the science of attribution. to read absolutely to understand what role can play science in current and future trials.

6) The most developed states. including France, have the obligation to be at the forefront of the fight against climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions

In a previous article, the researcher Yann Robiou du Pont explained that France was unaware of science for its climatic objectives.

Indeed. the principles of equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities” mean that all countries are responsible for climate change, but that their obligations to fight countries will held legally responsible against their capacities and their historical responsibility. Contacted again by good friend. Yann Robiou du Pont specifies that:

States contributions must reflect the highest possible ambition and must at least be aligned with the objective of limiting global warming to 1.5C by the end of the century. Given the liability. capacity of the richest countries, this implies:

• much more ambitious measures, including regulations of companies
• International financial support which must be immediate,
• compensations for damage causes

While diplomacy and to a certain extent climate legislation is retreating, climatic trials, such as the victories of the Swiss elders before the ECHR in 2024, multiply and manage to impose based on science.
Scientific studies are multiplying to meet legal obligations with climate standards and better inform courts of justice for climatic trials.

On July 3. 2025 The High Council for the Climate recalled that France did not do enough to fight against countries will held legally responsible global warming and that except miracle or radical change in politics, the country would not respect its climatic objectives by 2030. Will Macron government be (finally) held responsible for its inaction and thousands of dead climate change in France?

Lawyers. climate activists, citizens: it’s time to charge those responsible

This opinion of the International Court of Justice will be a reference in the months and years to come to assess the action, or rather the inaction of the States. It is to be expected that trials will multiply against states. companies that know that their activities kill and do nothing or not enough to stop this phenomenon.

If the reflex is to think of fossil fuels exporting companies. like totaling that wishes to increase its gas production by 2030, this opinion also insists on the contributions determined at the national level (CDN), that is to say the commitments of the states to countries will held legally responsible reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

This opinion strengthens the risks of States to be attacked in court if the latter are not credible. It is certain that it will have a diplomatic impact before and during the COP30 in Belém in Brazil. The host country claims to be at the forefront of the fight against climate disinformation. supported by gullible or paid NGOs for being, but plans “at the same time” to increase its oil production by 36% by 2035. The mirage of carbon compensation will also be at the heart of trials in the coming years. and it is more than time than the liars and gravediggers of the world climate.