The ICJ opens the door for affected states to seek restitution, compensation, and restoration of their ecosystems. While proving direct causality remains complex, the court insists it is not impossible. The opinion also explicitly names fossil fuel subsidies, exploration licences and corporate deregulation as potential violations, making the transition to renewable energy a requirement, rather than an optional policy. The court also notes that “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights”, which means that, at least in theory, countries that fail to address climate change are human rights violators.
Unfortunately, any law is only as strong as its enforcement mechanism, even more so for international law, where violators such as the US and Israel routinely walk out of treaties, rather than accept adverse decisions. Even before the US withdrew from most climate-related agreements under President Trump, it had long disregarded international laws that conflicted with “American interests”, whether related to climate, conflict, or commerce.
Still, at the bare minimum, the non-binding opinion should push the EU and countries that claim to hold human rights in high esteem into increasing their investment in climate change mitigation, while strengthening the case for some form of reparations, whether direct cash transfers or some form of preferential treatment for the worst-hit countries.