The ICJ climate ruling is being sold as a historic leap. The International Court of Justice says states have a legal duty to protect both current and future generations from the climate crisis. Many celebrate. Lawyers prepare lawsuits. Politicians promise action. Yet the gap between law and power remains vast. In truth, the ICJ climate ruling sets a high moral bar but offers no teeth to bite. I argue that this is progress on paper and illusion in practice.
ICJ climate ruling: what the judges actually said
In July 2025, the court issued an advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly. In short, it found that states must cut emissions, prevent foreseeable harm, and help those already suffering losses. It linked climate harm to core human rights such as life, health, and dignity. Consequently, the opinion gives judges and campaigners a shared language.
However, advisory opinions are not binding. They guide, but they do not force. Therefore, any change will depend on politics, not parchment. And that is the first key lesson.
How the mainstream framed the decision
Headline writers rushed to call it a breakthrough. Activists spoke of a new legal era. Island states welcomed the prospect of compensation. National courts may now cite the opinion to press governments and companies. In that sense, the ICJ climate ruling does raise the floor.
Even so, history tells us to stay cautious. Powerful states obey international rulings when it suits them. When it does not, they look away. Thus, celebration without strategy is a trap.
The oppositional view: law without teeth is theatre
Let us be clear. The court cannot shutter coal plants. It cannot fine oil majors. It cannot seize assets from the biggest emitters. Therefore, the ICJ climate ruling reads like an indictment with no police.
Western leaders cheer the court when it condemns their rivals. Yet when the same court points at their climate failures, they stress the word “advisory.” This double standard is routine. As a result, the ruling risks becoming an exercise in moral branding rather than material change.
Law, power, and money: an analytical breakdown
First, consider the energy system. Fossil fuels still provide most global energy. Oil companies post record profits. Meanwhile, public subsidies for fossil energy outpace support for renewables. As a result, the basic incentives do not align with the court’s demands.
Second, think about liability. Compensation implies payers and recipients. Trillions would be owed to vulnerable states if we priced historic and present harm. Yet the largest economies can veto, delay, or dilute any scheme. Therefore, the legal path alone cannot deliver fair payment at scale.
Third, note the forum. International law assumes equality of states. Reality does not. Power bends rules. It always has. Hence the ICJ climate ruling arms campaigners with arguments, but it does not rebalance power by itself.
Human perspective: who lives with the cost of delay
While diplomats debate, families move. In Tuvalu, tides chew away graveyards. In Bangladesh, floods push people from farms into crowded cities. In the Sahel, drought turns fields into dust, and mothers skip meals so children can eat. These communities hope the court will help. They travel to The Hague with banners and prayers.
Yet they cannot spend an advisory opinion. They need sea walls, clean water, seeds that survive heat, and safe homes. They also need the big polluters to pay. Until money and materials move, the law feels like a promise written on wind.
ICJ climate ruling in courtrooms at home
Even non‑binding guidance can shape domestic cases. Therefore, expect more lawsuits against governments that miss targets. Expect more claims against oil companies that misled the public. Judges now have a global benchmark to cite. As a result, plaintiffs will file smarter suits with clearer remedies.
Still, the volume of litigation may clog courts without cutting emissions fast enough. Lawsuits can win orders and damages. However, they cannot rebuild every grid, retrain every worker, or redesign every market. Policy must carry most of that load.
The politics that actually matters
If the opinion is to matter, three political shifts must follow. First, states must rewrite budgets. Subsidies for fossil energy must go. Instead, those funds should build transmission lines, storage, and clean baseload. Second, border rules must reward low‑carbon goods and penalize dirty ones. Otherwise, emitters will simply move. Third, climate cash must flow to the front lines now, not in 2035.
Crucially, the ICJ climate ruling can be used as leverage to pass these measures. It gives moral cover. It gives lawmakers a nudge. Yet it still requires coalitions, votes, and spine.
Counterarguments and straight answers
“The opinion is toothless, so ignore it.”
Not quite. Courts and regulators will cite it. It will shape the language of permits, plans, and penalties. Therefore, it adds pressure even if it cannot punish.
“Markets alone will solve this.”
Unlikely. Markets chase returns. Without rules, the cheapest path is often the dirtiest. Thus, law must set direction so capital can follow.
“Technology will bail us out.”
Innovation helps. However, deployment is policy‑driven. Without pricing carbon, building grids, and reforming permits, clean tech will scale too slowly.
“Reparations are impossible.”
Total justice is hard. Even so, partial justice is better than none. Debt swaps, disaster clauses, and loss‑and‑damage funds can move real money now.
ICJ climate ruling: the gap between law and power
Because the opinion has no enforcement, progress depends on pressure. Therefore, movements must turn legal words into political costs. Law can frame the fight. Power still decides it. The ICJ climate ruling supplies a script; citizens must supply the volume.
Meanwhile, we should be honest about timelines. Every year of delay locks in more heat. Every new gas field adds decades of emissions. Hence, the correct metric is not the number of pages in the opinion but the number of tonnes kept out of the air.
What would real compliance look like?
First, governments would publish binding carbon budgets with annual caps, not distant goals. Second, they would align public finance with those caps: no new fossil projects, period. Third, trade rules would apply a carbon border charge with strict exemptions for least‑developed countries. Fourth, the loss‑and‑damage fund would receive predictable revenue from fees on fossil extraction and shipping. Finally, independent auditors would verify progress and name violators.
If these steps sound political, that is the point. The ICJ climate ruling is a tool. Politics decides whether we use it.
A short case study: courts that moved the needle
Consider the Dutch Urgenda case. A court ordered the government to cut emissions faster. Therefore, policy sharpened. Consider the German Constitutional Court, which forced stronger targets to protect youth. Again, litigation produced real shifts. However, both wins succeeded because politics then followed. In each case, lawmakers enacted measures; budgets moved; agencies acted. Without that follow‑through, court orders would have sat on a shelf.
The media’s role and our responsibility
Media love milestones. Yet climate change punishes milestones. It punishes delay. Therefore, reporting should focus less on applause lines and more on implementation. Which ministries changed rules this quarter? Which pipelines were cancelled? Which grids were built? These are the questions that matter after the ICJ climate ruling.
As readers, we also have a role. We can pressure representatives. We can choose banks and funds that divest. We can vote for plans, not slogans. None of this is as satisfying as a “historic” headline, but it works.
Conclusion: the illusion we must reject
The ICJ climate ruling offers clarity and a compass. It defines duties. It lifts the cause of the vulnerable. It strengthens court cases. Nevertheless, it will not save the planet on its own. Law does not replace power; it channels it. Consequently, only politics can close the gap between judgment and justice.
So let us use the ruling as a lever, not a lullaby. Let us demand budgets, borders, and builds that match the science. And let us measure leaders not by speeches in The Hague, but by emissions kept out of the sky this year.
External references: Time coverage, Washington Post analysis.
97 views