A historic and unanimous ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has confirmed that countries bear strong obligations under international law to urgently slash climate pollution and prevent significant harm to the global climate system.
The landmark advisory opinion, issued on July 23, 2025, characterises the climate crisis as “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The ICJ ruling sets a clear expectation that nations must align their climate commitments with the Paris Agreement’s primary temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The Court explicitly states that countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), including specific climate targets such as Australia’s 2035 goal, must represent their highest possible ambition to prevent further harm.
Failure to cut climate pollution is deemed a “wrongful act” that could trigger legal consequences, including international obligations to make reparations or compensation to countries suffering climate damages.
The decision holds particular significance for Australia.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie emphasised the ruling’s broad impact, stating: “The decision will reverberate across the world and around Australia – in courtrooms, boardrooms, Parliaments and international negotiations.”
She underscored that the Court “makes it crystal clear that all countries have significant legal responsibilities to prevent further climate harm by slashing their climate pollution rapidly and deeply”.
Importantly, the Court rejected the Australian federal government’s argument that the country is not responsible for emissions from its fossil fuel exports.
The ruling clarifies that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for fossil fuel production — whether used domestically or exported “due to the significant harm it causes and regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned”.
McKenzie said: “The world’s highest international court has exploded the federal government’s argument that Australia is not accountable for our vast fossil fuel exports.
“Australia has a legal duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system, not just in our domestic pollution but in all our activities.”
The Court stressed that wrongful acts include actions or omissions causing significant harm to the climate system in breach of a state’s international obligations.
The ruling also highlights countries’ obligations to regulate private actors within their jurisdiction, which would encompass fossil fuel industries producing for domestic or international markets.
Amanda McKenzie also highlighted the urgent climate realities facing Australia, stating: “With every fraction of a degree of global heating, we can expect more deadly climate disasters.
“Already this year, Australians have faced destructive flooding in New South Wales and Queensland, drought in South Australia and Victoria, and devastating marine heatwaves across three states.”
She added: “A strong 2035 climate target, with clear plans to meet it, is vital to protecting vulnerable communities from further harm.”
The Climate Council’s report, Stronger Target, Safer Future: Why Australia’s 2035 Climate Target Matters, demonstrates that a robust national emissions reduction target can protect Australians from climate harm, unlock economic opportunities in green industries such as renewable energy and green metals, and enhance regional security.
The ICJ ruling arrives as the Australian federal government prepares to finalise its decision on the 2035 climate target.
The Court’s judgement makes it clear that the target must be ambitious and backed by credible plans and policies.
Furthermore, ongoing fossil fuel production, consumption, and governmental support such as licensing or subsidies could be considered wrongful acts under international law, potentially triggering reparations to impacted nations.
Given Australia’s status as one of the highest per capita polluters and major fossil fuel exporters, the Court’s decision holds the government responsible for its comprehensive climate impact, domestically and abroad.
Reform of national environmental laws, including provisions to consider climate pollution from new fossil fuel projects, is likely required to comply with the Court’s clear mandate for the “highest possible ambition” to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
This watershed moment for international climate law establishes that countries must not only commit to strong climate action but also can face legal consequences for failing to do so.
The ruling signals an era of heightened accountability for global climate leadership and environmental responsibility.
This historic decision underscores the inextricable link between international law, climate justice, and the urgent need for nations like Australia to step up and lead in reducing climate pollution to safeguard a liveable future for all.
