Climate Justice & the Role of Regional Human Rights Courts

By Amy Kraitchman*

Introduction

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion on the obligations of States to protect the climate and environment from the effects of greenhouse gases for present and future generations. In its unanimous opinion, the Court made it clear that States have a legal obligation to take steps towards meeting climate obligations and reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. While some see this ruling as not going far enough to protect vulnerable communities from the effects of climate change, others argue that it signals the confirmation of the human right to a clean and healthy environment. Regardless of whether observers wished the opinion went further, the ICJ’s ruling marks a significant change in the future of climate change litigation and communities’ ability to hold polluters accountable at the national and regional level. This blog post will explore how regional human rights courts can use the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change to enforce greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments and protect vulnerable communities.

ICJ Background: A court of limited authority

The ICJ was created in 1945 to settle legal disputes between United Nations (UN) Member States and to give advisory opinions on questions submitted to the Court from the UN organs and specialized agencies. (Stat. Int’l Ct. Just., art. 35–36; UN Charter art. 96). The UN General Assembly (UNGA) and Security Council may submit advisory opinion requests on “any legal question.” (art. 65, § 1). After receiving an advisory opinion request, the ICJ will gather facts and accept oral and written comments from Member States and the organization(s) that submitted the request. (arts. 65, § 2; 66, § 4). The resulting advisory opinions constitute the interpretation of the binding norms found in international treaties, UN conventions, international customs, and other laws and legal obligations. (How the Court Works, Int’l Ct. Just.). An advisory opinion from the ICJ is regarded as the most authoritative interpretation of general international law and, thus, its ruling can be interpreted and enforced in other national and international courts around the world. 

The ICJ, however, does not have the capacity and ability to rule on every dispute between other parties. The ICJ, a court focused on general matters arising under international law, is not supposed to or able to provide specific interpretations of existing human rights instruments. Instead, these interpretations are meant to be done by the respective UN organs and regional or national courts. Additionally, the ICJ is not a human rights court and does not make rulings on specific alleged human rights violations. Thus, other human rights organs, with more specialized knowledge and authority on interpreting and enforcing specific human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, or the International Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR) are now able to interpret and enforce the ICJAO to ensure maximum protections for impacted communities. For instance, since the ICJ’s ruling, impacted communities have filed new suits against polluters to seek reparation for climate related impacts. Recently, the District Court of the Hague, held that the Netherlands had violated the right of Bonaire residents by failing to protect them from the effects of climate change. Similarly, residents in Ukraine recently filed a suit against Russia with the Register of Damage for Ukraine seeking reparations for greenhouse gas emissions related to the ongoing invasion. The ICJAO has opened a new path for people seeking to enforce their right to a clean environment and to hold polluters accountable. 

ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change: Protecting Human Rights and Enforcing Existing Obligations

After receiving submissions from 99 States and 13 international organizations, the ICJ unanimously adopted their opinion on States’ obligations in regards to climate change, providing much needed clarity on the enforcement of existing climate agreements. The opinion confirmed that States not only had a responsibility to prevent the impacts of climate change, but they have a binding duty to limit emissions under international law. Specifically, the opinion states that the climate change treaties created and adopted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) create an obligation on Member States to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and undertake other adaptation measures (para. 195, 200–206, 210–213). Significantly, it stated that Annex I States have an additional obligation to lead efforts to combat the effects of climate change by limiting their emission levels and removing current greenhouse gases from the environment (para. 205–206). These findings not only reaffirm the commitments made by UNFCCC Member States (specifically in the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement) but add much needed binding and enforcement measures to ensure that steps are actually being taken towards meeting these commitments.

Additionally, under international law, States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by taking all necessary steps to prevent harmful activities from happening within their jurisdiction or under their control (para. 132–135). These responsibilities, referred to as common but differentiated responsibilities and capacities, are important in acknowledging that there are varying levels of obligations under international law and climate change agreements. While Annex II States are the ones most impacted by the effects of climate change, they often are not the ones causing most of the greenhouse gas emissions globally. Instead, the Court stated that States should work together to take mitigation measures and should act in good faith to prevent harm worldwide, with Annex I States leading the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (para. 365). For any state that violates these obligations, the Court found that full reparations to injured parties are required through restitution, compensation, and satisfaction (para. 451–455).

Lastly, along with these binding obligations to take meaningful steps towards reducing the impacts of climate change, States must also take steps to ensure that communities’ and individuals’ right to a clean and healthy environment are not violated by the ongoing effects of climate change (para. 393). The connection between human rights and environmental factors has been recognized by the UN since the 1968 UN General Assembly resolution 2398, and other human rights courts and over 100 States have also already recognized the right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment (para. 391).  The ICJ, in light of all these existing acceptances, laws, and references to the need for a clean and healthy environment, finds that not only is a healthy and sustainable environment important, but it is also “a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights” and that it “results from the interdependence between human rights and the protection of the environment” (paras. 388, 393). Thus, for the first time the ICJ confirmed the existence of an international human right to live in a clean and healthy environment under international law. This finding was particularly important in light of the fact that several polluting States had consistently rejected the right as a binding norm of international law, arguing that UNGA resolution 2398 was merely a political commitment. This position has now effectively been rejected, opening new pathways for litigation on grounds of violations of this right, which forms the very foundation of the protection for essentially all other human rights. 

In addition to recognizing a right to a clean and healthy environment, the ICJ also recognized other human rights that are impacted by the effects of climate change. The Court reiterated that a clean and safe environment “is the foundation of human life” and that environmental protections are not only necessary, but are a “precondition” for human rights (para. 373). Environmental pollution and degradation directly impacts the enjoyment and rights of people globally to live. So, the Court held that every child and future generation has an “inherent right to life,” as held in the UN convention on the Rights of the Child, and thus States must take steps to preserve the environment and protect it from the effects of climate change. (para. 377). Without substantial efforts to protect the environment and communities from the effects of climate change, communities most impacted are likely going to be forced to move out of their home countries due to their native lands becoming uninhabitable (i.e. due to sea-level rise or prolonged droughts). (para. 378). So, the Court also held that, in addition to a human right to an adequate standard of living, States have an obligation under the principle of non-refoulment to not send people back to their home counties when they are uninhabitable and when doing so would put those communities at substantial risk to their right to life due to the impacts of climate change (para. 378, 380). By acknowledging how human rights can be deprived due to climate events, the Court finds that the effects of climate change can impact the rights to enjoyment, access food and safe water, and privacy—showing that climate change not only poses a health risk to impacted communities, but also a substantial risk to live where in native lands or where people choose. (para. 379–382, 386).

The findings of the advisory opinion are not to be understated. In holding States and other actors accountable to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the opinion provides significant weight to the enforcement of existing climate treaties and agreements, and other international laws. Also, when these treaties and laws are violated, it establishes a human right that communities can seek to enforce. For instance, the ICJAO found that long held human rights principles, such as intergenerational equity, were undisputable in the climate change context (para 155). While intergenerational equity—the principle of equity and quality of life across generations, including future generations—has already been recognized in various understandings in international environmental law, the ICJ solidified in the AO that intergenerational equity is legally significant in the climate change context, and thus the interest and rights of future generations must be considered when States implement policies and measures to address the impacts of climate change and reduce harmful emissions. With this clear directive from the ICJ, regional and national courts must now consider, for example, the impacts on the rights of future generations when a state’s alleged failure to take adequate steps to protect the environment from the effects of climate change are raised—not just the potential impacts to the environment. 

The ICJ’s findings are broad enough to provide protection under international law to both impacted communities and the environment. The purpose of the opinion was not just to protect people, but to ensure that States are actively working to address and prevent the effects of climate change. By recognizing an international right to a clean and healthy environment, the AO not only recognizes that States have an affirmative duty to take meaningful steps to reduce greenhouse gases and to enforce pollution restriction on polluters, but they also have an affirmative duty to do so in a way that protects all citizens and vulnerable communities, not just a select few.

Enforcing the ICJAO at the National and Regional Level

Along with the ICJ, there are three regional human rights courts that operate autonomously to address human rights concerns and violations: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR); the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR); and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Each court has the authority to interpret and enforce international law, such as the ICJ’s ruling on climate change. Before the AO, the human rights courts had been asked to interpret international climate and human rights laws. However, rulings across regions and countries can differ on how, or if, human rights are impacted by the effects of climate change, which makes it difficult for communities to seek remedies. For example, in 2005, the IACtHR dismissed a petition by an Indigenous woman who claimed that the United States of America’s (U.S.) failure to adopt greenhouse gas emission reduction standards had violated her human rights. (Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights). After hearing oral testimony, the Court had dismissed the petition, finding that the plaintiff had failed to show that there was a violation of protected human rights under the governing regional statutes. (Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights- Decision). Decades later, in 2025 the IACtHR issued an advisory opinion on climate change, finding that Member States—including the United States—had the obligation not only to “respect human rights in the context of the climate emergency” but also to prevent further harm to the environment and to proactively monitor and mitigate emissions from the state and corporations. (para. 221, 447, 469, 557). Prior to this opinion, it would  have been difficult for impacted communities to determine if remedies were available to them in the Americas—even while other national or regional courts affirmed human rights violations caused by climate change. However, now, the ICJAO affirms that every community across the world has the same rights in the climate change context and that all States share the same obligations to protect these rights. 

The ICJAO not only strengthens the understanding of the connection between environmental protections and human rights, but also the duty of States to proactively protect both. The ICJAO provided much needed clarity to international climate laws and how they interact with human rights laws, thus providing guidance to these courts on how to enforce these laws and treatises. It also confirmed that human rights law, customary law, and climate treaties are all mutually reinforcing and must be read in harmony with one another, thus informing one another (para. 404). 

As more climate cases are brought before these three courts and other national level courts, communities and private citizens could see more success in human rights claims that result from the ongoing effects of climate change. Many of the human rights principles discussed and upheld in the ICJAO, had not previously been connected in international climate law as rights that can be violated or as state obligations. Now, regional and national courts can apply these rights and obligations to enforce international treatises and greenhouse gas emission commitments.

While all three regional human rights courts can rule on disputes brought before them, only the IACtHR and AfCHPR may issue advisory opinions when requested by Member States. Both have already been asked to interpret member state obligations under existing human rights treatises and laws in regards to climate change. The IACtHR opinion was issued in the same month as  the ICJAO, providing further support to the IACtHR’s interpretation and enforcement of the ICJAO. The AfCHPR request was submitted in 2025 and is still pending with the deadline to submit amicus curiae briefs just having passed on March 30, 2026. While the ICJAO is a global ruling, human rights courts have the authority and ability to interpret them at the regional level to ensure that the ICJ’s ruling is enforced with respect to regional differences. These opinions provide—or will provide—additional clarity to Member States as to their obligations to protect human rights and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however, they are not the only ones who have a role in enforcing and interpreting the ICJAO. 

National courts also have the ability to interpret and enforce the obligations and rights affirmed in the ICJAO for citizens residing within a state. Recently, for example, the Hague District Court ruled that the Netherlands had violated the rights of Bonaire residents by failing to take adequate steps to protect them from the effects of climate change (see further on the WYCJ Legal Blog). In the case,the residents claimed that the Netherlands had failed to take adequate and timely steps towards protecting them and had violated their right to a clean and safe environment. The Court held that the Dutch government must now establish binding targets to reduce their greenhouse gases in line with their commitments under the Paris Agreement, showing how the ICJAO can not only be used to protect peoples’ right to a clean and healthy environment but also to force States to take meaningful steps towards achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets and commitments previously made.

Conclusion

The ICJ's recent advisory opinion on States’ obligations in regard to climate change was a monumental ruling that affirmed the obligations of States to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Within the opinion, the Court affirmed States’ duties to protect impacted communities and the environment from significant harm caused by climate change. While significant, the opinion is not solely focused on human rights obligations of States because the ICJ is not a human rights specific court. However, the ICJAO does provide substantial support to national and regional courts to enforce state obligations and to protect the right to a clean and healthy environment for everyone. 

Without the ICJAO, the ability to enforce greenhouse gas reduction commitments, or the right to a clean and healthy environment would vary significantly by region and country. If a country or regional court had not yet acknowledged these rights, it could be harder for communities or individuals to seek reparations or compensation for damages caused by climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in the U.S., which recently announced their intention to pull out of all international bodies, only youth groups in States that have recognized a constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment in their constitution have been successful in holding their state governments accountable to take meaningful steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Held v. Montana and Navahine v. Hawai’i Department of Transportation). However, now the youth plaintiffs behind the Juliana v. United States case have filed a petition with the IACtHR asking for them to hold the U.S. accountable for decades of failure to adequately address greenhouse gas emissions through meaningful energy policies and that the current administration’s push for more fossil fuel development will cause further harm to them and future generations. The petition alleges that through these actions the U.S. has violated their obligations under the ICJAO and IACtHR advisory opinion to protect their rights to a clean and healthy environment and they asked the Court to list the specific rights the U.S. has violated thus far.

The ICJAO not only provides additional weight to existing climate change and human rights treaties and laws, but also could present a new way vulnerable communities can seek to enforce greenhouse gas reduction obligations and protect their right to a healthy environment. Without the ICJAO, communities are left to rely on national and regional policies, which may vary in protection and remedies. Now, however, the ICJAO provides both guidance on what remedies are available to impacted communities and much needed guidance and enforcement of existing international treaties and laws.

*Amy Kraitchman is the Ocean and Coastal Law Fellow at the National Sea Grant Law Center (NSGLC) at the University of Mississippi. She earned her J.D. with a certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law from Lewis & Clark Law School and her Bachelor of Science in Environmental Economics and Policy from Oregon State University. She is licensed to practice in California. She is also a member of the Legal Advocacy Taskforce at WYCJ. The views in this blog do not represent NSGLC or the University of Mississippi.