Takeaways from the ICJ Verdict: How it Can Help Establish Natural Rights and Why It’s Relevant to Human Rights

On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a historic Advisory Opinion on the “Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.” This unanimous decision constitutes a significant step forward for human rights and environmental protection globally, as it was called for by the UN General Assembly at the urging of climate-vulnerable nations. The ICJ clearly stated that existing international law encourages states to safeguard the climate system for present and future generations. With this ruling, the world’s highest court recognized the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a fundamental part of human rights and reinforced the legal basis for what many refer to as the natural rights of the environment itself. Although the opinion is not legally binding, it has significant moral authority and legal weight, making it a powerful tool for advocates, scholars, and policymakers to promote human rights and climate justice.

Legal Basis of the Ruling

The ICJ’s advisory opinion is based on many parts of international law, showing how climate change obligations are all connected. The Court referred to major environmental treaties like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and the Montreal Protocol. It also looked at the UN Charter, the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as well as International human rights laws. Importantly, the Court affirmed that key principles of customary international law also apply. These include the duty to prevent significant environmental harm, the duty of due diligence (act with care), the principle of intergenerational equity (protecting future generations), and the precautionary principle. The ICJ explained that climate change treaties don’t stand alone; they operate alongside and reinforce these general legal duties. The Court noted, for instance, that the Lex Specialis of climate agreements does not exclude other international rules. “Customary obligations are the same for all States and exist independently regardless of whether a State is a party to the climate change treaties”. In other words, every country has responsibilities under general international law to protect the climate system, even if they haven’t signed a particular accord. The ruling concludes that the duty to address climate change arises from a variety of legal stands, including human rights law, treaty obligations and a long-standing customary law, resulting in a "sufficiently powerful framework" of enforceable duties. The ICJ was able to define exactly what states must do and must not do to address the climate crisis under existing law.

States’ Climate Obligations Clarified

One of the opinion’s most important contributions is its detailed clarification of states’ obligations on climate change. The ICJ left no doubt that these obligations are real, substantive, and enforceable, not merely political aspirations. In answering the UN’s questions, the Court outlined a range of concrete duties, including requirements to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, cooperate internationally, and even regulate private polluters. Key obligations highlighted by the ICJ include:

Mitigation and Emission Reductions: States must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Paris Agreement goals. The ICJ said national climate pledges (NDCs) are not optional, they must meet certain legal standards (para 249). Countries must take strong domestic actions to meet the 1.5°C goal, and failure to do so could breach international law (para 251, 268).

Adaptation to Climate Impacts: Adaptation is as important as mitigation. Countries are legally required to protect people and ecosystems from climate harm. The “fulfilment of adaptation obligations… is to be assessed against a standard of due diligence”, meaning countries must earnestly use their best efforts based on the latest science (para 258). Notably, the judges affirmed that “adaptation obligations under the Paris Agreement complement the mitigation obligations”. Adaptation and mitigation go hand in hand weak action now means more harm later (para 259). By declaring adaptation a legal obligation rather than a policy option, the opinion strengthens protection for communities vulnerable to sea-level rise, extreme weather, and other climate hazards.

Duty to Cooperate and Support: International cooperation is not just encouraged, it is required. Climate change, by its global nature, demands collective action. The ICJ cited the UN climate treaties’ provisions on cooperation in finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building, emphasizing that “co-operation is not a matter of choice for States but a pressing need and a legal obligation” (para 308). Developed countries, in particular, bear obligations to assist poorer nations in cutting emissions and coping with impacts, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Equity and Future Generations: The ICJ affirmed that “equity and intergenerational equity are thus to be taken into account in the interpretation of the relevant treaties” (para 182). This means states must consider equity, such as historical emissions and differing capacities, in implementing climate obligations, and they must account for the rights and needs of future generations. By expressly referencing intergenerational equity, the court injected the interests of unborn generations into the legal equation.

Due Diligence to Prevent Harm: The obligation of states to prevent significant transboundary harm by taking all reasonable measures. The Court “reaffirms that States must fulfil their duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence (para 280).

Regulating Private Actors: No state can escape responsibility by pointing to emissions from its corporations or citizens. The Court stated that “obligation of States to regulate the activities of private actors as a matter of due diligence” (para 428). The ICJ's conclusion is that states must hold polluters accountable and that all polluters, whether private or public, are subject to the law.

Aligning the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion with Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG)

The framework of Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG), given by M. Zakir Hossain Khan, has a strong legal foundation due to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on States' obligations with regard to climate change. At its core, NRLG states that nature possesses inherent rights to exist, thrive, and regenerate, and that human governance must operate within these natural laws to ensure justice, equity, and the long-term survival of all beings.

The ICJ’s verdict supports this vision by clearly stating that states have legally binding obligations under international law to protect the climate system, prevent serious environmental harm, and uphold the rights of both present and future generations. The opinion affirms that environmental protection is an essential part of human rights and elevates duties such as due diligence, equity, intergenerational justice, and international cooperation from optional commitments to enforceable legal standards. By confirming that violations of these duties lead to legal consequences including halting harmful actions, providing reparation, and regulating private polluters, the ICJ strengthens NRLG’s core principle that governance must prioritize the integrity of nature over narrow economic or political interests.

“ Towards Sustainabity of Nature, Towards Prosperous Future of the Planet”

The Court’s emphasis on using the best available science and drawing from customary international law mirrors NRLG’s call for decisions that are grounded in natural knowledge and ecological boundaries. This advisory opinion provides legal legitimacy for shifting away from human centered and exploitative development models toward governance systems that recognize and enforce the rights of ecosystems, ensure human actions respect ecological limits, and promote the fair sharing of natural resources. NRLG can therefore use the ICJ’s findings to push for constitutional changes, global agreements, and institutional reforms that treat the protection of nature as both a legal duty and a moral responsibility.

The Right to a Healthy Environment as a Human Right

The verdict of the ICJ holds important meaning and advances the recognition of environmental rights on the global stage. In its advisory opinion, the Court acknowledged that a safe and sustainable environment is not a mere policy preference but an essential foundation for all human rights. With current developments in international human rights law, the ICJ affirmed the existence of a universal right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment and linked it directly to existing human rights treaties and principles. The Court noted “acknowledged [the] right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as essential for the enjoyment of other human rights” (para 393). This is to say that basic rights such as the right to life, health, food, water, and housing cannot be enjoyed to the fullest without a balanced environment. All these rights are at threat due to climate change as it is increasing disasters and disease as well as resources.

In addition to addressing environmental rights, the judges emphasised that the adverse impacts of climate change might "significantly affect the enjoyment of certain human rights," including the rights of women, children, Indigenous peoples, and others, as well as the rights to life, health, and a sufficient standard of living.

The ICJ opinion provides authoritative support for lawsuits and petitions that frame climate change as a human rights issue. It strengthens the hand of vulnerable populations, such as those in low-lying islands, drought-prone regions, or Arctic communities, to demand climate remedies as a matter of right, not charity. The ICJ has more firmly than ever embedded environmental protection into the core of international human rights law.

Obligations Owed Erga Omnes: A Duty to All Humanity

The ICJ stated that the climate obligations are Erga Omnes, meaning they are owed to everyone in the world, not just one country. Every nation and person have a legal interest in whether states follow climate rules. The Court said: “All states have a legal interest in compliance” (para 444). Thus, any state, not only those suffering direct climate harm, can invoke the responsibility of another state that fails to uphold its climate duties. In legal terms, this is a profound statement: climate change is not just a series of bilateral issues, but a common concern of humankind backed by universal legal accountability.

This opens the door to global accountability, as it allows any country to take action if a major emitter fails to meet its climate obligations. It also reinforces the connection with human rights, which are similarly recognized as obligations owed to all. By framing climate protection as an erga omnes duty, the Court makes clear that safeguarding the climate is part of the broader responsibility to protect all people, including future generations who are yet to be born. According to the opinion, breaching states incur “obligations of cessation and non-repetition” (to halt the illegal behavior and prevent it from happening again), as well as an obligation of “full reparation, including restitution, compensation and/or satisfaction” for any harm caused (para 445). The legal path to climate justice, including compensation for loss and damage. It shows that climate action is not optional, it is a legal duty, enforceable by all states.

A Leap Forward for Human Rights and a Step Toward Nature’s Rights

The ICJ's advisory opinion on climate change is being valued as a landmark decision for both the environment and human rights. It marks an important leap in international human rights law through incorporating nations climate duties into legal frameworks and connecting them to the protection of human well-being. The connection between human rights and environmental health has never been made so obvious at such a high level. The Court's opinions will be heard in courtrooms and policy circles, providing those who seek stronger climate action on behalf of communities and vulnerable individuals a greater voice. It emphasises that climate inaction is more than just poor governance, it can be a breach of binding legal obligations to mankind. This verdict is also important because it opens the door to recognizing natural rights, meaning that nature itself could be seen as having rights to exist, thrive, and regenerate. The ICJ did not explicitly state that nature has legal rights, but its opinion strengthens the argument for moving in that direction. The Court affirmed that the environment is fundamentally important for human rights and declared that states have a duty to prevent environmental harm for the benefit of everyone.

If a healthy environment is essential to human dignity, it follows that the environment should receive legal protection in its own right. The Court described climate obligations as being owed to the entire international community, suggesting that protecting the climate system is not just about serving individual or national interests but about safeguarding something that has value for all life. This reasoning narrows the gap between recognizing a human right to a healthy environment and granting legal rights to nature itself.

The ICJ’s findings also support giving nature a stronger voice in legal systems. In some countries, rivers, forests, and ecosystems have already been granted legal personhood, meaning they are treated as entities with rights that can be defended in court. This approach reflects the idea that nature should not be viewed only as property but as something entitled to exist, flourish, and be restored when harmed. The ICJ emphasized that states have a duty to respect and preserve the integrity of the climate and to repair environmental damage. This aligns with efforts around the world to create laws that recognize nature as a subject of protection. As the Court itself observed, “The protection of the environment is indivisible from the realization of human rights,” highlighting that caring for nature is an essential part of fulfilling humanity's highest legal and moral responsibilities.

In conclusion, the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change obligations is a landmark for the future of human rights and environmental law. It makes clear that a stable climate and a healthy environment are essential foundations for peace, sustainable development, and human dignity, placing them firmly among the rights that must be legally protected. By defining the responsibilities of states and the consequences of failing to meet them, the Court has created a pathway for stronger accountability. Polluting states and industries responsible for pollution can no longer act as though there are no legal limits to their actions.

This verdict also strengthens the voices of youth activists, vulnerable nations, and indigenous communities by grounding their demands for climate justice in law. It offers a new tool for courts, lawmakers, and civil society to push for stronger environmental protection and greater respect for human rights. Over the coming years, the ICJ’s opinion is likely to influence lawsuits, international negotiations, and local advocacy efforts around the world. While this opinion alone cannot stop climate change, it sets a solid legal foundation for holding polluters accountable and for advancing the recognition of natural rights. It is a decisive step toward a future in which both human rights and the rights of nature are fully acknowledged, respected, and protected by law.

Prefered Citation

Roza, Z. K. (2025). Takeaways from the ICJ Verdict: How it Can Help Establish Natural Rights and Why It’s Relevant to Human Rights. Nature Insights, 3(3), 18.