THE NEW GEOGRAPHIES OF THE GLOBAL CRISIS
Cross-party coalitions have asked the International Court of Justice to clarify the obligations and responsibilities of states in the context of the climate crisis. In July, the Court upheld most of the requests from countries in the Global South most affected by climate change, recognising the disproportionate effect of the crisis on these states, largely accepting their legal arguments, and paving the way for future litigation.
Climate change is devastating the planet through various impacts that vary according to geography and the vulnerability of countries. To shed light on the obligations of states in relation to the climate crisis, in March 2023 the United Nations General Assembly requested an opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through Resolution 77/276. From 2 to 13 December 2024, 99 countries and 12 international organisations presented their arguments in proceedings that were unprecedented in terms of participation and scope, and the Court’s opinion arrived last July.
A reality check
First-hand accounts from representatives of countries in the Global South provide a concrete and dramatic insight into the impact of climate change on the lives of millions of people, which varies according to geography but is common to all due to the structural vulnerabilities of these states. Rising sea levels are particularly affecting small Pacific islands and coastal areas. ‘Our archipelago is facing sea level rise, which threatens to submerge entire communities, destroying homes, farmland and vital infrastructure,’ said Vanuatu. The Cook Islands also warned that ‘sea level rise threatens to submerge our low-lying islands, putting our very existence at risk,’ while the Marshall Islands stressed that ‘our nation is at risk of disappearing due to sea level rise, with devastating impacts on our culture.’
From tropical regions, Fiji, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Melanesian Spearhead Group and the Philippines reported increasingly intense cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons, which destroy homes, infrastructure and livelihoods, exacerbate forced displacement and put pressure on already fragile economies. In other areas, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Burkina Faso highlighted the combined effects of drought, water stress and desertification on food and water security; Chile, Bolivia and Ecuador highlighted the risks posed by glacier melt to urban and agricultural water supplies and to indigenous communities. Belize linked the degradation of marine ecosystems to the economic vulnerability of coastal communities, while Brazil and Papua New Guinea denounced the acceleration of deforestation, with impacts on indigenous communities, biodiversity and the global climate system.
Individual voices, a chorus of demands
In this context, the legal arguments presented to the Court have helped to redraw the political balance in relation to climate policies. At the centre of this are cross-cutting alliances between countries of the Global South which, despite belonging to different regions, share greater exposure to the impacts of climate change and, as a result, a particularly disadvantageous and unfair position – given the historical responsibilities of the countries of the Global North.
These coalitions have redefined the North-South divide around specific legal demands: binding mitigation and adaptation obligations, prevention of transboundary damage, recognition of historical responsibilities, financing and reparations. The Court’s opinion of 23 July 2025 gave full weight to this convergence, largely accepting the arguments put forward by the most affected countries and recognising binding obligations under customary international law, the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement and other instruments.
In particular, the Court accepted the argument put forward by many countries in the Global South that climate treaties are not the only relevant source: “multiple sources” bind states in the context of the climate crisis, which triggers a complex set of legal obligations under international law. In this context, the Court also confirmed the legally binding nature of the provisions of climate treaties, and in particular the Paris Agreement. Contrary to the position taken by countries in the Global North on the voluntary nature of these commitments, the Court stated that 1.5°C is the legally binding mitigation target, which in turn requires the adoption of ambitious mitigation and adaptation measures in light of the best available scientific knowledge.
1.5°C is the primary agreed-upon legally binding target… states must take ambitious mitigation measures in line with the best available science.
Both customary international law and climate treaties… impose binding obligations on states to undertake adaptation measures…
The opinion also clarified the scope of the duty to prevent transboundary environmental damage, applying it also to greenhouse gas emissions. Rejecting the arguments of the countries of the Global North, and in particular the United States, the Court ruled that historical emissions of climate-changing gases can be attributed to individual states thanks to the scientific evidence available.
Scientific evidence allows emissions to be attributed to individual states, including cumulative historical and current emissions.
On this basis, the Court also ruled that it was possible to invoke the responsibility of emitting states and therefore to request forms of reparation, including compensation and restoration. In this sense, while not directly addressing the issue of states’ obligations regarding loss and damage, the Court recognised an additional responsibility on the part of developed countries to financially support developing countries, strengthening their claims related to climate finance.
Developed countries have the additional responsibility of helping developing countries meet the costs of adaptation.
At the same time, and once again contradicting the positions of the countries of the Global North, the Court confirmed the link between human rights and climate change, establishing, including through the recognition of the human right to a healthy and clean environment, that the effects of the climate crisis can significantly compromise the enjoyment of fundamental human rights.
Conclusions
The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice marks a turning point in global climate governance. For the first time, international law systematically recognises what the countries of the Global South have been arguing for decades: the climate crisis is neither abstract nor future, but is already here and disproportionately affects states that have contributed minimally to global emissions. The alliances that emerged in the proceedings before the Court are not merely tactical convergences, but a structural reorganisation of the international legal field. Island states, African, Asian and Latin American countries have transformed their shared vulnerability into a common legal platform capable of influencing the content of international obligations and challenging the restrictive interpretations promoted by the major historical emitters. Although not formally binding, the opinion redefines the space of possibility. It provides countries in the Global South with legal tools to move from demand to responsibility, strengthening their alliances and their collective voice in international forums.
The climate crisis thus emerges not only as an environmental challenge, but as a test case for the fairness of international law itself: a law that, for the first time, seems to be beginning to respond concretely to those who suffer most while having less responsibility, thanks to the strength of global coalitions in the South.
In this context, already profoundly transformed by the July 2025 opinion, a further decisive step is now being taken. Vanuatu, together with a cross-party coalition of states from all regions, has submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations General Assembly to formally accept and implement the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The initiative aims to translate the legal authority of the advisory opinion into concrete policy guidelines, strengthening respect for the Court and international law at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. If adopted, the resolution would mark a further consolidation of climate justice as a guiding principle of multilateral action, confirming the driving role of Global South coalitions in redefining the content and priorities of global climate governance.
Article by Marta Abbà, volunteer at Italian Climate Network, with critical input from the ICN Team, which is exploring the topic in depth in the series La Causa del Secolo.