ICJ climate opinion shows the power of youth and global south solidarity
The unanimous decision clarifies governments’ obligations and provides a precedent for African human rights-based cases.
In 2019, law students in the Pacific Island state of Vanuatu were frustrated by the injustice of who pollutes the Earth versus who suffers the consequences. Their decision to explore legal recourse resulted in a rare act of global south solidarity and the first-ever International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion on climate change.
Africa has much to gain from the opinion. There are also lessons about focused collective action and pursuing legal pathways to compel climate action.
On 23 July, the ICJ judges found that climate change posed an ‘urgent and existential threat’ and that governments were legally required to protect the climate system as a precondition for upholding human rights, and address damages already created.
The opinion stated that ‘failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from [greenhouse gas] GHG emissions – including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act … attributable to that [state].’
Governments are legally required to protect the climate system and address the damage already created
The ICJ opinion is not legally binding but clarifies state responsibilities. It also demands that governments regulate and hold the private sector accountable through mechanisms that include compliance, emissions accounting and risk mitigation.
It requires states to uphold international climate change agreements, namely the Paris Agreement. The opinion opens the door for low-emissions groups and countries – many in Africa – to push high-emissions nations to stronger action or seek compensation. It could significantly change conversations around climate change in Africa, and is a triumph of collective action among low-income and climate-vulnerable countries.
The 2019 campaign was spearheaded by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, who urged national leaders to take human rights and climate change to the ICJ.
In 2021 Vanuatu announced it would seek an ICJ opinion on climate change. For 18 months, the country lobbied other United Nations (UN) members to support its request. In 2023, after the matter was put before the UN General Assembly with 132 co-sponsors, all 193 member states agreed to approach the court.
The ICJ opinion shows that collective youth advocacy can set a global agenda and enable change
As a result, climate inaction now constitutes a matter of international law. Vanuatu’s successful campaign also shows that collective youth advocacy can set a global agenda and enable change.
For years, youth have lobbied at UN conferences, organised campaigns, pressured corporations and engaged policymakers. The ICJ opinion reaffirms litigation as an effective tool for youth to demand action and rights protection. Two examples show how African youth have already taken steps in this direction.
In 2024, South African youth led the #CancelCoal campaign, which included among others, the African Climate Alliance. The campaign won a landmark High Court case, overturning government plans for a 1 500 MW new coal-fired power project. The judge found the government had not fully considered the impact on children’s rights, particularly to a healthy environment.
In 2012, a group of minor children in Uganda filed Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environment Management Authority for failing to address climate change. After 13 years, the case has yet to be concluded.
Options for African countries to seek reparations or debt cancellation are open for exploration
The ICJ opinion offers global legitimacy that could bolster African youth’s demands from their governments and courts, providing a powerful rallying point to frame climate litigation regarding human rights. Young people in Africa should strategically advocate and build transnational coalitions as part of a global effort.
Vanuatu comprises a collection of islands with a population of just 300 000. It continuously loses territory and arable land due to rising sea levels. Despite its size, the country has been at the forefront of climate justice for decades.
At the first UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in 1991, Vanuatu led the call for a justice mechanism for countries bearing the brunt of climate change despite contributing the least. Small Island Developing States in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean have worked collectively to maximise their influence.
The ICJ opinion is significant for Africa. Despite contributing only around 3%-4% of historical emissions, the continent suffers the worst impacts. These include biodiversity loss, water scarcity, reduced food production, loss of life and reduced economic growth. At the end of 2024, 9.8 million people were displaced internally by climate-related events, mainly in Africa.
The ICJ opinion should embolden African actors to amplify this asymmetry as a climate justice matter that compels global accountability and reparations, and in negotiations for more equitable climate finance.
By framing climate change as a human rights issue, the ICJ provides a precedent for other rights-based cases and a mandate for countries to strengthen climate laws. Most African legal systems have a limited appetite for climate change due to few precedents, procedural backlogs and insufficient capacity.
In May 2025, a coalition of African lawyers and civil society groups requested an advisory opinion from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the obligations of states in the face of the climate emergency.
The ICJ case is the largest to date, with 91 written and 107 oral statements. Countries including Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Namibia and Kenya argued that climate change adversely impacted rights. Historic greenhouse gas emitters and petrostates argued against linking human rights to climate impacts, and for treaties like the Paris Agreement to govern climate change.
South Africa – Africa’s largest emitter (7% of global emissions) – also argued against a rights-based approach, saying its own climate vulnerabilities and complex socioeconomic circumstances caused an unjust burden. China and India have made similar claims to avoid paying into climate funds, which in turn have been used by countries such as the United States to withdraw from climate agreements.
How the ICJ opinion will be applied, who uses it, and how states respond remain to be seen. Options for African countries to seek reparations or debt cancellation are open for exploration.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
