Right to Life in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change – EJIL: Talk!

Report on the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and State Obligations

Introduction: A Landmark Opinion for Sustainable Development

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 represents a pathbreaking development in international law concerning state obligations on climate change. This report analyzes the Opinion’s significant contributions, particularly its reinforcement of human rights and its direct implications for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Opinion strengthens the legal frameworks underpinning SDG 13 (Climate Action) by defining state responsibilities and enhances SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by providing an authoritative interpretation of international law to protect vulnerable populations.

The Right to Life and the Principle of Non-Refoulement

A central finding of the Advisory Opinion is articulated in paragraph 378, which addresses the connection between climate change, the right to life, and the principle of non-refoulement. The ICJ establishes that states have a direct obligation to protect individuals from being returned to countries where climate change poses a severe threat to their lives.

• The Court affirms that states have obligations under the principle of non-refoulement where substantial grounds exist to believe there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the right to life, as protected by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
• This legal protection is triggered by life-endangering conditions resulting from climate change, thereby linking environmental protection directly to fundamental human rights.
• By safeguarding the right to life from climate-induced threats, the Opinion provides a crucial legal foundation for advancing SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Evolution of International Law and Implications for SDG 10

The ICJ’s Opinion marks a significant evolution from previous legal interpretations, notably the Human Rights Committee’s 2019 decision in Teitiota v. New Zealand. The Court’s pronouncement removes previous temporal qualifications, establishing an immediate and present obligation for states.

1. In the Teitiota case, the Human Rights Committee acknowledged the threat of sea-level rise to Kiribati but concluded that a 10-to-15-year timeframe could allow for intervening protective measures, thus finding no violation “not yet.”
2. The ICJ Advisory Opinion omits any reference to such a timeframe. By stating that “States have obligations,” the Court confirms that the threshold for action has been met, reflecting the escalating urgency of the climate crisis.
3. This shift provides a stronger legal basis for protecting climate-displaced persons, directly addressing the vulnerabilities of populations in the most affected nations and contributing to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Legal Framework and the Scope of State Obligations

The Opinion clarifies that the obligation of non-refoulement in the context of climate change is grounded directly in international human rights law, independent of the 1951 Refugee Convention. This expands the scope of protection for individuals fleeing climate disasters.

• The ICJ affirms that the legal trigger for non-refoulement is the condition of the country of origin being unsuitable for human life, rather than the formal classification of an individual as a “refugee.”
• This establishes a clear legal consequence for a factual situation, recognizing the reality of “climate refugees” under public international law.
• While the Opinion establishes the principle, the precise scope of “irreparable harm” and the concept of “life with dignity” will require further definition, presenting an ongoing challenge for international and domestic legal systems in line with the objectives of SDG 16.

A Call for Global Action in Line with the 2030 Agenda

The ICJ’s findings underscore the inadequacy of legal protection alone and function as a call for comprehensive global action. The Opinion necessitates a multi-faceted response grounded in international cooperation and sustainable development principles.

• Climate Change Mitigation: Urgent and massive investment in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is paramount to prevent the large-scale displacement of populations. This is the core objective of SDG 13 (Climate Action).
• Climate Change Adaptation: Assisting communities, particularly indigenous peoples, to adapt their lives and livelihoods to new climate realities is essential. This supports the creation of resilient and sustainable communities as envisioned in SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Planned Resettlement and Partnerships: International agreements and planned resettlement schemes, such as the one between Australia and Tuvalu, are a necessary component of the global response. Such collaborative efforts exemplify the spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  • Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. The article directly discusses people “fleeing climate change,” the legal principle of non-refoulement for these individuals, and mentions “planned resettlement schemes, such as the one agreed between Australia and Tuvalu” as part of the solution.
• SDG 13: Climate Action
  • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries. The article highlights the need to help “peoples, communities and individuals to adapt their lives, livelihoods and cultures to the new realities of climate change,” especially in places like Kiribati threatened by sea-level rise.
  • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The ICJ Advisory Opinion is a major international legal development that establishes state obligations regarding climate change, which will influence national policies and legal frameworks concerning migration and human rights.
  • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning. The article itself, by analyzing a landmark legal opinion, contributes to awareness and capacity building within the legal and political spheres on the human rights implications of climate change.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article’s central theme is the “right to life” (ICCPR Article 6) and the “real risk of irreparable harm” to this right due to climate change, which this target aims to prevent.
  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The entire discussion revolves around an ICJ Advisory Opinion and cases before the UN Human Rights Committee (Teitiota v. New Zealand), which are prime examples of using international legal institutions to promote the rule of law and seek justice for individuals affected by climate change.
  • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… The article emphasizes how the ICJ’s opinion will be used before “domestic courts and tribunals, regional human rights courts and UN human rights treaty bodies,” thereby strengthening these institutions’ capacity to address climate-related human rights issues.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
  • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources. The ICJ’s role in issuing an advisory opinion on states’ obligations is a form of global partnership. The article also calls for a “global commitment, mobilisation and investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation” and references the need for “assistance of the international community” for nations like Kiribati.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of countries with legal frameworks recognizing climate-related non-refoulement: The article establishes that the ICJ opinion affirms a “state obligation of non-refoulement” for people fleeing climate change impacts. An indicator of progress would be the number of states that incorporate this principle into their national immigration and asylum laws, reflecting Target 16.3.
• Number of planned resettlement or climate mobility agreements: The article explicitly mentions the “planned resettlement schemes, such as the one agreed between Australia and Tuvalu,” as a practical measure. Tracking the number and scope of such bilateral or multilateral agreements would be a direct indicator for Target 10.7.
• Volume of investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation: The text calls for “a global commitment, mobilisation and investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation.” Therefore, the financial resources mobilized and directed towards these activities, particularly for vulnerable nations, serves as a key indicator for Targets 13.1 and 17.16.
• Number of legal decisions citing the ICJ Advisory Opinion: The article predicts the opinion will be “quoted before domestic courts and tribunals, regional human rights courts and UN human rights treaty bodies.” Tracking the number of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions that rely on this opinion would measure its influence in strengthening the rule of law on climate issues, relevant to Target 16.3.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: ejiltalk.org