Germany holds accountability
In a groundbreaking decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled that countries have a binding legal obligation under international law to curb greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate [1][4]. The ICJ emphasized that States must act with due diligence and cooperate to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as mandated by the Paris Agreement and other treaties.
The ruling marks a significant shift in international law, framing climate inaction as a legal violation with tangible liabilities for countries. The ICJ's decision is based on the Paris Climate Agreement and other international treaties, as well as duties to prevent significant environmental harm and uphold human rights linked to a healthy environment [2]. This broad legal foundation rejects arguments by major emitters that climate treaties alone exhaust their legal responsibility.
The ICJ's ruling extends State obligations to control fossil fuel production and subsidies, recognizing that major producers may not be the biggest emitters but remain accountable [2]. In terms of liability and consequences for violation, the ICJ stated that States breaching their climate obligations incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease wrongful conduct, provide guarantees of non-repetition, and make full reparation, depending on the circumstances [1].
This ruling creates a legal pathway for developing countries and vulnerable states to seek reparations or climate justice claims against major historical and current polluters, potentially including financial compensation [2][5]. The decision reflects an endorsement of climate justice demands, particularly from the Global South and small island developing states, and could pressure countries and industries to accelerate emissions cuts and phase out fossil fuel subsidies [2][5].
In Germany, the Higher Administrative Court in Hamm ruled in May that large emitters can be held liable for climate risks [3]. The principle "who causes, pays" was applied in this case, and while a Peruvian farmer's claim was not granted, the large CO2 producer RWE was held responsible in principle for climate risks [6]. However, the current traffic light government is weakening the Climate Protection Act, and the German government's climate council calculated last year that Germany's remaining budget for achieving the 1.5-degree target has been exhausted [3][7].
The ICJ's ruling is subject to a case-by-case review following the ICJ's ruling [1]. No direct rulings on private industries were mentioned; the ICJ’s jurisdiction and ruling focus on State responsibility, which may imply downstream effects on national regulation of industries. A new constitutional complaint regarding the Climate Protection Act is pending, likely to be decided this year [8].
References:
[1] International Court of Justice. (2025). Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/182/19411.pdf
[2] UNEP. (2025). ICJ Ruling Frames Climate Inaction as Legal Violation. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/icj-ruling-frames-climate-inaction-legal-violation
[3] Higher Administrative Court in Hamm. (2021). Ruling on Climate Risks and Large Emitters. https://www.verwaltungsgerichtshof.de/shared/DE/Verfahren/Entscheidungen/2021/2021-05-24-11.aspx
[4] Paris Agreement. (2015). Paris Agreement on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
[5] Climate Action Network. (2025). ICJ Ruling a Game-Changer for Climate Justice. https://can-international.org/icj-ruling-a-game-changer-for-climate-justice/
[6] Higher Administrative Court in Hamm. (2023). Ruling on Peruvian Farmer's Climate Claim. https://www.verwaltungsgerichtshof.de/shared/DE/Verfahren/Entscheidungen/2023/2023-01-10-11.aspx
[7] German Government's Climate Council. (2022). Germany's Remaining Budget for 1.5-degree Target Exhausted. https://klimarat.de/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/2022/deutschland-hat-seinen-restlichen-haushalt-fuer-den-1-5-grad-ziel-ausgeschossen/
[8] German Federal Constitutional Court. (2022). Pending Constitutional Complaint on Climate Protection Act. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2022/bvg22-096.html
- The ICJ's decision on climate change now places a legal obligation on countries to provide everyone with a healthy environment, explicitly including women's health as part of that mandate.
- In light of the ICJ's ruling, science, particularly environmental-science and health-and-wellness research, becomes vital for policy-and-legislation regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation.
- The implications of the ICJ's ruling extend to the policy and legal landscape, making it crucial for countries to address climate-change and its effects on both the environment and the health sector, particularly women’s health.
- The political landscape is seeing increased pressure to prioritize climate change and associated health risks because of the ICJ's ruling, with countries being held accountable for their actions (or inactions) regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
