The Vanuatu climate case goes far, but not far enough
In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice says that states are obliged to protect the climate. Jolein Holtz, a climate and human rights expert, believes the Court is too vague about the impact for future generations: ‘A missed opportunity’.
Is it possible for a small country to bring major world powers such as the United States to their knees and force them to commit to tackling climate change? Yes, it is, according to a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a recent case brought before it by the state Vanuatu.
This archipelago in the South Pacific Ocean risks being completely wiped out if the sea level continues to rise as a result of climate change. Vanuatu asked the ICJ to answer two questions: are states obliged to protect the climate? And what are the consequences if they do not comply with their obligations?
Climate and human rights expert Jolein Holtz, who is on the verge of obtaining a PhD on this topic, explains exactly what the ICJ's ruling means.
What do you think of the ruling?
‘I’ve got mixed feelings about it. The good news is that the ICJ has ruled that states must protect the climate. The court’s advisory opinion is based on customary international law: unwritten rules that become established as many countries adhere to them over a long period. Although this obligation isn't contained in major human rights treaties, it’s still enforceable. So, climate action for states is no longer merely a political choice, it’s also a legal obligation. This even applies to states that are not party to the Paris Agreement (see box text), or have withdrawn (as Trump did on behalf of the US in January 2025).
'Climate change will affect future generations the most.'
What makes this ruling so important is that states may now be held liable for climate damage. If a state breaches its environmental obligations and as a result causes climate damage to other countries, it will be held liable and must remedy the damage.
That said, the ruling is disappointing for me when it comes to human rights as it remains vague on crucial points. Although the ICJ acknowledges that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right, the Court does not say what that right involves exactly. Nor does the ICJ say what precise obligations countries have towards future generations. That’s a missed opportunity.'
An Advisory Opinion from the ICJ: what is that?
The ICJ’s decision is an advisory opinion, i.e. non-binding advice. An advisory opinion is still authoritative since the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. In such a procedure, the ICJ is asked to answer certain questions and deliberate on the interpretation or application of the law.
In this case, Vanuatu, via the UN General Assembly, asked the ICJ what obligations states have to tackle climate change (see main text).
Why is it important that the ICJ failed to recognise the human rights of future generations?
‘The problem with climate change is that the greatest impact will only occur in the future. Greenhouse gas emissions are going to continue to have an impact for decades: we’re only now suffering from the emissions that occurred years ago. A successful appeal to human rights often requires the presence of reasonably foreseeable harm, which conflicts with the reality of the climate problem where it takes years before the worst consequences become apparent.
If the ICJ had recognised the human rights of future generations, it would have put an end to this difficult legal discussion. It would have placed a legal obligation on states to take the interests of future generations into account now, and would have forced them to take more ambitious climate action. What for us is still only a likely future scenario will, for future generations, become harsh reality.
The counterargument always given is that there’s still time to limit future damage by making ambitious plans. But if we recognise that future generations have rights that can be violated now, their interests would be protected now. Just look at Vanuatu: some islands have already disappeared, and it’s doubtful whether young people will still have land on which to live in the future.’
Will states now truly make greater efforts to tackle climate change after this ruling?
‘When it comes to climate action, there are two options. The first is that a country can make voluntary efforts – though that requires political will – or be forced to take action. Although this ruling is non-binding (see box text ‘advisory opinion’), I expect that it will act as a catalyst for new climate cases, especially between states. Small island states such as Vanuatu have little to lose and could take the lead here.
The second option is the diplomatic route. On the basis of the ruling, countries can encourage each other to adopt more ambitious climate plans (see box text ‘Paris Agreement and climate goals’). According to the ICJ, those plans must not only be more ambitious, they must also be in line with the 1.5 °C objective. In that sense, the Court goes further than the Paris Agreement since it states that global warming must be limited to 2 °C.
The corporate sector should also be considered. According to the ICJ, states must regulate companies over which they have control. This is crucial, as it remains very difficult to hold companies liable under international law, which is still very state-oriented. But companies are often more powerful than small states and there’s great public desire to hold them accountable. For the climate movement, this is an important opening.’
Paris Agreement and climate goals
The 2015 Paris Agreement, also commonly known as the Climate Agreement, is the largest international climate agreement to date. Countries agreed to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and preferably below 1.5 °C. Without these agreements, the global temperature would rise 3.5 to 4 °C which would have major consequences for life on earth. The Agreement is ‘binding’, but the climate goals or plans of separate countries are not. In order to comply with the Climate Agreement, all EU Member States have agreed that the EU will be climate neutral by 2050 and that by 2030 it will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 55%.
Every five years, all countries evaluate the progress made in tackling global warming. Countries are also obliged to draw up climate plans every five years on how they are going to reduce their own emissions. The Dutch Climate Agreement (Klimaatakkoord) contains the specific measures and agreements that apply in the Netherlands.
Jolein Holtz will defend her PhD thesis entitled ‘Collective Human Rights as an (Onto)Logical Solution to Climate Change. Reconceptualizing, Applying, and Proceduralizing an Overlooked Category of Human Rights’ on 16 October 2025.