Clarity Without Justice: Does the World Court’s Climate Opinion Truly Matters?

Posted byyacaphilippinesPosted inSpotlight SeriesTags:, , , ,

By Khurt Darren Gatdula and John Carl Cabangon

In what many hailed as a “historic ruling”, a breakthrough for environmental accountability, the ICJ has provided clarity on climate change— but not justice in any way. Let’s break it down:

2024 is the hottest year on record and after that we experience severe climate catastrophe all over the planet that makes our commitments for climate justice must be upheld in every moment in time.

On the 23rd of July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change—a judicial clarification, a non-binding element but interprets existing enforceable legal obligations already binding under international law.  

The landmark opinion is embedded on a wide range of existing legal instruments including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement—three foundational treaties that structure the global response to climate change, instituting “accountability.” These treaties already impose obligations on states to mitigate emissions, help adapt to climate impacts, and cooperate internationally. The ICJ reaffirmed that failing to fulfill these duties, especially those who are historically high-emitting industrialized nations, may constitute a violation of international law. Crucially, it recognized that environmental degradation, driven by greenhouse gas emissions and anthropogenic means, is not just a scientific concern but a human rights issue.

What’s the International Court of Justice?

The International Court of Justice was established in 1945 as a way of settling disputes between countries which is situated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. The court also provides advisory opinions on legal questions that have been referred to it by other authorized UN organs. Which makes sense why countries affected by climate change seek legal guidance by the said court as it is widely known as the “World Court.” It is one of the six “Principal Organs”  of the United Nations, a product of colonial power, on the same footing as the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat, and the only one that is not located in New York. (United Nations, N.D)

What’s the court say on climate change?

According to the ICJ, climate change is a threat “of planetary proportions,” and nations have a duty to act with due diligence to prevent significant environmental harm, to cooperate with each other, and to protect vulnerable populations and ecosystems—but unfortunately, it is different from what is happening due to imperialism and bureaucratic capitalism both in the global and local context.

The judicial clarification affirms that nations could not hide behind their economic or military power, instituting vague commitments or delaying action without legal and moral consequences. The enforceable laws it interprets are plagued with gaps, inconsistencies, and voluntary mechanisms that fall short of the urgency of the crisis. Consistent efforts should still meet commitment from both the people, states, and ruling courts.

In doing so, according to paragraph 55 of the said A.O., the Court recognized climate change as an urgent, universal, and existential threat, affirming that it poses a “quintessentially universal risk to all states.”

However, this leap is not enough to attain justice and to enforce accountability. In the bigger picture, UN advisory opinion makes our campaign for climate justice stronger yet without teeth as the major carbon emitter such as the United States of America is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. These permanent members hold veto power, meaning they can block any substantive resolution regardless of the majority vote in the Council.

The Climate Empire of United States of America

Historically, the United States has emitted the most greenhouse gases in the world, fueled by its longstanding economic power, military expansion, industrial growth, and political domination across the planet. According to Sison (2021), “U.S. imperialism has also manipulated weather conditions to wage geological war against its enemies in the Asian mainland, and the Philippines is also adversely affected because it is in the path of super-typhoons directed against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

As a result, extreme climate changes now submerge countries like ours under relentless super-typhoons and crippling droughts. Forests are dying, seas are rising to unprecedented levels, and entire communities are left with nothing but the hope of survival. Yet, the new Trump administration is moving to shield the United States from climate accountability by withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which mandates shared global responsibility to climate changes, especially from the most developed and historically polluting nations, to limit carbon emissions and keep global warming below 1.5°C.

Recently, U.S. federal judges under the new administration temporarily blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from canceling $14 billion in climate grants approved by the previous Biden administration. While this ruling stalls Trump’s efforts to freeze climate spending, it does little to address the broader agenda of expanding fossil fuel extraction, ramping up coal mining, and disregarding the urgent scientific call for a rapid transition to renewable energy.

When the rich and most developed countries take their step away from their obligations, they put the most climate-vulnerable countries to bear the heaviest costs. Countries from the global south experience multiplying the devastation of past decades experiencing poverty, hunger; and lack of education and shelter driven by global warming. This is not just climate negligence; it is a human rights violation fueled by climate denial.

The United States of America led different war games and extensive militarization in south-east asia and beyond through expanding its military bases in different parts of the world such as the Philippines through the Visiting Forces Agreement, the Mutual Defense Treaty, and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement that allows the United States Military free reign to terrorize local communities and destroy the environment. The support of the United States allows the Armed Forces of the Philippines to have greater presence in rural communities, leading to the same. According to YACAP Climate Report 2024, “The logistical requirements to support war games and training exercises, and to maintain the presence of US armed forces in the Philippines produces untold waste, including CO2 emissions. The presence of the US military in the Philippines is wholly destructive, and wholly unnecessary. It must be removed, and all policies that allow it must be repealed.” 

The Carbon Dioxide from Wars

Military expansion impacts the environment not just through physical form and habitat displacement, but also through massive unaccounted carbon emissions from weapons, aircraft, and vehicles.

According to a 2022 estimate by the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) and the UK’s Scientists for Global Responsibility, global militaries produce approximately 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. If militaries were treated as a single country, they would rank as the fourth largest emitter in the world, yet these emissions often don’t appear in national carbon accounts.

For instance, a 2024 study by Chelsea Harvey reported that the first 60 days of the US-Backed Genocide in Gaza alone emitted 281,000 metric tonnes of CO₂, from immediate sources like tanks, aircraft, rockets, and artillery. When accounting for post-conflict reconstruction, some estimates show total emissions could rise to 450,000 metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent surpassing the annual emissions of over 33 nations. 

Wars and military mobilization kill not just through violence, but also through ecological destruction; and the climate carnage they produce is rarely counted.

So Why Do ICJ’s Advisory Opinion Matters?

This is especially crucial for countries like the Philippines, where climate change has ceased to be a future risk and is now an ongoing catastrophe. For Filipino communities, especially the poor, climate change is an everyday reality: typhoons bring deadly floods, while dry seasons extend into crippling droughts.  The case was initiated by Vanuatu and supported by 132 nations, driven by the pleas of Pacific Island law students, and amplified by climate-vulnerable nations. As the Philippines’ Solicitor General told the Court: “When we are not being drenched, we are being scorched” — underscoring the dual reality of floods and droughts that characterizes the Global South’s climate crisis causing not just a seasonal challenge, but a year-long burden to the masses. The line was not poetry. It is the truth and reality backed by suffering.

From a legal standpoint, the ICJ drew on environmental and human rights law, citing instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It also reaffirmed legal principles like intergenerational equity, sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the doctrine of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities—acknowledging that while climate change affects all nations, some bear greater historical responsibility and have greater capacity to respond.

This may not be a ruling that enforces sanctions as the ICJ explicitly stated it would not assess legal liability on any specific state. It may not provide direct justice, but the World Court’s Opinion provides the Global South, courts, and activists with a clarified legal foundation to hold polluters accountable in future litigation. It is a strengthening of the legal armor for the battles we are about to face to achieve Climate Justice—moreso Social Justice.

It is not a hopeless situation, that we, the people, could hold a state accountable. In cases like Urgenda v. Netherlands (2019), where the Dutch government was ordered to cut emissions based on human rights arguments, or Milieudefensie v. Shell (2021), where a corporation was held liable for its emissions, we see the power of legal frameworks in action. These were victories born from existing law, now reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice.

Still, limitations abound. The opinion is non-binding. The treaties it references, especially the Paris Agreement, rely on voluntary national pledges known as NDCs, which lack enforcement mechanisms. Legal scholar Lavanya Rajamani notes that while the Paris Agreement is a diplomatic triumph, it often sacrifices legal force for consensus.

There is also a deeper flaw, the existing international environmental law is fragmented, and climate governance remains uneven. Many Global South nations clamor for a stronger loss and damage framework, yet tangible reparations remain elusive. The ICJ’s clarification may inspire further cases, but without structural reform, climate justice remains out of reach.

The Conference of Parties 30

As the world prepares for COP30 in Brazil, the ICJ’s advisory opinion could help pressure governments to raise ambition. Whether that happens depends on public pressure, litigation, and local mobilization. For the Philippines and other frontline nations, the fight is far from over. But now, we have one more legal tool in our arsenal. Not for celebration, but for continued struggle.

The judicial clarification of the International Court of Justice, equips movements with legal language, sharpens tools for struggle, and dignifies the voices from the margins, especially of small islands, indigenous communities, and the youth.

But the opinion and existing enforceable laws alone would not guarantee justice. The law may light the path but it is the people who must walk it. In solidarity, for the people; for the future.

No more empty promises!

System change now!

End Climate Imperialism!

SOURCES:

Published by yacaphilippines

Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines is an alliance of individuals, youth organizations, and student councils that advocate for immediate youth-led global climate action. The Fridays for Future of the Philippines.

Leave a comment