Landmark Climate Ruling: What the World’s Highest Court Means for Australia
- Inga
- Jul 26
- 5 min read
In a watershed decision that is reverberating across the globe, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has made it clear: countries have powerful legal obligations to fight climate change, and Australia’s own duties just got a lot stronger. This article explains what the ruling is, why it matters, and what it could mean for Australia’s future.
What Did the Court Decide?
In July 2025, the ICJ - the world’s highest court for international disputes - delivered a groundbreaking ruling on climate change responsibility. Unanimously, the Court found that nations must take all possible steps to cut climate pollution rapidly and deeply, reflecting their obligations under international law. The judgment described climate change as “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet”.
Importantly, the ruling goes well beyond previous interpretations. The Court highlighted that countries are responsible not just for domestic emissions, but also for harm caused by fossil fuels they export - like Australia’s vast coal and gas shipments. If a nation’s actions (or inaction) cause significant harm to the climate, it could be considered a “wrongful act” triggering the obligation to make reparations or provide compensation - especially to nations hardest hit by climate disasters.
Why Is This Ruling Historic?
This case is a world first. For the first time, the ICJ’s advisory opinion directly links climate responsibility with legal consequences and human rights, backed by binding international law. Climate pollution is no longer just an environmental issue - it’s a legal one, with potential consequences in courtrooms nationally and internationally.
Driven by a Pacific-led campaign and supported by evidence from communities harmed by climate change, the court’s decision recognises the right of every person to be protected from climate damage. This has opened the door for communities and nations harmed by climate change - including many of Australia’s Pacific neighbours - to potentially seek compensation or legal remedies in the future.
The ICJ is the highest judicial authority for disputes between nations, but it does not have direct enforcement powers to compel countries to comply with its rulings. While its decisions are legally binding, enforcement depends on voluntary compliance or political pressure, as the UN Security Council - tasked with enforcing judgments - can only act with the agreement of its members, some of whom may veto enforcement measures. Consequently, the ICJ relies largely on states’ goodwill, reputational concerns, and diplomacy to ensure compliance, limiting the practical force of its rulings, including those on climate change obligations.
Australia’s Fossil Fuel Exports: No Longer Off the Hook
Australia has long argued that it is not accountable for emissions from fossil fuels it exports, since they are burned overseas. The Court has rejected this defence. The ICJ made it clear that if a nation produces, consumes, exports, or even subsidises fossil fuels in ways that cause significant climate harm, that nation may be legally responsible - regardless of where the fuels are burned.
This marks a fundamental shift for Australia, as one of the world’s biggest coal and gas exporters. The court’s ruling essentially explodes the long-standing government argument that only domestic emissions count toward its legal obligations.
Over this period Australia exported 14,904 PJ and imported 2,273 PJ of energy. 65% of Australia’s exported energy was black coal and 30% was natural gas. 96% of energy imports were refined petroleum products and crude oil. Source:
What Does This Mean for Australia’s Climate Policy?
The decision sets out clear expectations:
Australia must set strong, science-aligned climate targets.
The court “considers the 1.5°C threshold to be the primary temperature goal,” in line with the Paris Agreement. The next major benchmark is Australia’s 2035 climate target, which must be ambitious enough to help keep global warming below 1.5°C.
Australia must reduce both domestic and exported emission impacts.
This means not only cutting pollution at home, but also rethinking the future of fossil fuel exports.
Continued expansion or subsidies for fossil fuels could be a “wrongful act” under international law.
This could expose Australia to future compensation claims or legal action from nations and communities suffering climate harm.
Human rights obligations are engaged.
The ruling confirms that climate change is now recognised as a human rights crisis at international law, and Australia’s legal duty is to protect people - at home and abroad—against climate harm.
What Are the Consequences if Australia Fails to Act?
The court stressed that if a country’s actions (or failure to act) lead to climate damage, that nation could be required to make reparations - including financial compensation - to injured countries. However, enforcement of such orders would ultimately depend on voluntary compliance or enforcement measures decided by the UN Security Council, which is not automatic and can be limited by political considerations among its members.
Australia already faces challenges from climate disasters, with recent years seeing destructive floods, extended drought, and marine heatwaves. The Climate Council has argued that only a faster shift to renewables and ambitious emission cuts - net zero by 2035 - will protect Australians from even worse harm.
There is now strong pressure on the Australian Government to increase its national commitments, accelerate the move away from fossil fuels, invest in modern industries (like green metals and clean energy), and develop clear policies to meet science-based targets.
Global Impacts and Regional Leadership
Australia’s decisions matter for its own people and economy. But the ruling also gives fresh momentum to countries vulnerable to sea level rise and extreme weather - especially Australia’s Pacific neighbours - who may look to this legal precedent to seek support or accountability.
By aligning its policies with the court’s ruling, Australia could strengthen relationships in the region, unlock clean energy investment, and protect jobs in a rapidly changing global economy.
What Happens Next?
Australia is expected to update its 2035 climate target in the coming months. The ICJ’s judgment makes it clear that targets must reflect the “highest possible ambition” - and must be backed by real action, not just promises.
There is still time for Australia to lead. But the ruling has set a new legal bar, and the world is watching closely.
This landmark court decision is a wake-up call - one that could reshape Australia’s climate future for decades to come. It’s not just a matter of policy anymore: climate action is now a legal, moral, and economic imperative.
🙏🏼
Comments