Staff Correspondent 

The United Nations' highest court is set to deliver a much-anticipated advisory opinion on Wednesday, outlining the climate obligations of states under international law. The decision, while non-binding, could serve as a legal milestone in global efforts to combat the climate crisis.

Prompted by years of advocacy from vulnerable island nations threatened by rising sea levels, the UN General Assembly in 2023 formally requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue the opinion. The request followed concerns that international agreements were failing to move quickly enough to address escalating climate threats.

A panel of 15 judges at the Hague-based court was asked to address two key questions: what duties do countries have under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, and what legal consequences arise when government actions—or inactions—cause significant environmental harm?

“The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,” Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during hearings held in December.

Typhoon Wipha disrupts flights, uproots trees across Hong Kong and Southern China

Global sea levels rose by an average of 4.3 centimeters (1.7 inches) between 2013 and 2023, with even higher rates observed in parts of the Pacific. Meanwhile, global temperatures have increased by 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Vanuatu, along with other South Pacific island nations, has been at the forefront of efforts to secure international legal recognition of climate-related harms. “The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,” said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister for climate change.

Although any opinion issued by the ICJ would not be enforceable, it could become a critical reference for future legal and political actions. The decision may serve as a foundation for domestic lawsuits, new legal frameworks, and possibly further international litigation.

“What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It’s not just about future targets -- it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.

Legal experts say the court's findings could empower citizens to file lawsuits against their governments for failing to act on climate obligations and open the door for countries to pursue legal accountability against one another through the ICJ. The opinion may also influence legal provisions in trade and investment agreements.

However, major fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Russia, remain opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions.

The upcoming opinion adds to a series of recent legal victories for small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that countries have a legal duty to avoid environmental harm and to restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights declared that governments must provide stronger protection against the impacts of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme Court recognized climate protection as a human right, ruling that the Dutch government must safeguard its citizens from climate risks.

The ICJ’s decision on Wednesday is expected to set a precedent, potentially influencing global climate policy for years to come.