Pakistan praises the ICJ’s climate obligations recommendation.
As a reaffirmation of important international legal responsibilities in solving the global climate disaster, Pakistan has welcomed the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on nations’ legal obligations surrounding climate change.
In an opinion that will guide future environmental lawsuits, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated on Wednesday that nations must work together to reduce emissions in order to meet the “urgent and existential threat” posed by climate change. In certain situations, other states impacted by climate change may file lawsuits as a result of nations’ inability to fulfill their climate duties.
The ruling “underscores the urgent global challenge posed by climate change and reaffirms critical legal obligations under international law,” according to a statement issued by the Pakistani government on Thursday.
On April 15, 2025, Pakistan’s attorney general, Mansoor Usman Awan, made oral arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), highlighting the necessity of acknowledging governments’ responsibility to avert major environmental harm as “an obligation that transcends borders and demands stringent diligence from every State.”
Additionally, on March 21 and August 9, 2024, Islamabad provided the court with two comprehensive written comments that reaffirmed its stance on the obligations of nations under international environmental law.
According to the government, the ICJ upheld a number of important stances put up by Pakistan in its advisory opinion on nations’ legal obligations with regard to climate change.
See also: The world’s highest court opens the door for climate reparations
The Court affirmed that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are specifically covered by the long-standing customary international law concept of preventing serious environmental harm. The decision reaffirms that governments have a duty to stop activities that occur inside their borders from seriously harming the environment beyond international borders.
The ICJ confirmed that the wider duty of prevention under customary international law is not superseded by specialized climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
This decision upholds Pakistan’s stance, which denied that these treaties constitute lex specialis that might restrict or replace the universal environmental obligations that all states have to fulfill.
When actions taken within a state’s borders result in harm outside of it, particularly effects related to climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recognized that states have extraterritorial human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The decision supports Islamabad’s argument that states are accountable for human rights abuses brought on by deeds or inactions that seriously impair the environment and affect people abroad.
According to the statement, Pakistan, one of the nations most affected by climate-related disasters, “exhorts all nations to strictly adhere to their legal obligations and to strengthen international collaborative efforts to mitigate climate change and support adaptation measures.”
Furthermore, environmental organizations promptly embraced the ICJ’s ruling. According to legal experts, it was a win for low-lying and small island states that had petitioned the court to define the roles of the states.
‘Govt prepared to handle climate effect’
This opinion comes after two weeks of hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December of last year. The UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider two questions: what are the legal obligations of nations to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions under international law, and what are the legal repercussions for nations that damage the climate system?
Rich nations from the Global North informed the justices that their obligations should be determined by the primarily non-binding climate treaties that are currently in place, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Small island governments and developing countries most at risk from sea level rise pushed for more robust, often legally binding, regulations to reduce emissions and for financial assistance from the largest emitters of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
After the 2015 Paris Agreement had failed to stop the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions, they had asked the court for clarity.
According to the United Nations’ “Emissions Gap Report,” released late last year, which compares nations’ pledges to address climate change with what is actually required, existing climate policies will cause global warming to surpass 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
According to June data from London’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, the number of climate-related lawsuits has increased to around 3,000 claims filed in nearly 60 nations as activists try to hold governments and corporations accountable.
