A historic and unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice has confirmed countries' strong obligations under international law to slash climate pollution, and set out the expected legal consequences for breaching these obligations.
In the ruling, the Court states that the climate crisis is: "an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet".
The Climate Council's preliminary analysis (below) finds the decision has significant implications for Australia.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: "The decision will reverberate across the world and around Australia – in courtrooms, boardrooms, Parliaments and international negotiations.
"The court makes it crystal clear that all countries have significant legal responsibilities to prevent further climate harm by slashing their climate pollution rapidly and deeply.
"The Court's ruling makes it clear that Australia has international legal obligations to take responsibility for its fossil fuel production-whether used domestically or exported-due to the significant harm it causes and regardless of where the coal, oil, or gas is ultimately burned.
"The world's highest international court has exploded the Federal Government's argument that Australia is not accountable for our vast fossil fuel exports. Australia has a legal duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system, not just in our domestic pollution but in all our activities.'
The Court characterises failure to cut a nation's climate pollution as a "wrongful act" that could trigger obligations to make reparations, including compensation, to other countries injured by the climate crisis.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: "With every fraction of a degree of global heating, we can expect more deadly climate disasters. Already this year, Australians have faced destructive flooding in New South Wales and Queensland, drought in South Australia and Victoria, and devastating marine heatwaves across three states. A strong 2035 climate target, with clear plans to meet it, is vital to protecting vulnerable communities from further harm."
The Climate Council's report, Stronger Target, Safer Future: Why Australia's 2035 Climate Target Matters, shows a strong national target can protect Australians from climate harm, open economic opportunities in modern industries like green metals and renewable power, and enhance our regional security.
| Climate Council Preliminary Analysis, Thursday 24 July 2025 Implications of the International Court of Justice Decision For Australia: "Obligations of the States in Respect of Climate Council". The judgement shows: 1. Countries have very strong obligations under international law to cut climate pollution and prevent significant harm to the global climate that sustains human life. The Court refers both to climate treaties and other bodies of international law. 2. Australia is obligated to set strong, science aligned climate targets. The Court makes clear that it "considers the 1.5°C threshold to be the parties' agreed primary temperature goal for limiting the global average temperature increase under the Paris Agreement." It states that countries "Nationally Determined Contribution" (NDC), which includes the 2035 climate target, must be in line with the Paris Agreement goal to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C. The judgement further emphasises that each country must "do its utmost to ensure that the NDCs it puts forward represent its highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the [Paris] Agreement." Yesterday, the Climate Council released the latest scientific data showing that this goal is almost out of reach for Australia due to a decade of delayed action (2013-2022). That research shows net zero by 2035 is the only climate target available to Australia with a strong chance of contributing to holding global warming below 2°C. However, the Court makes clear that to be aligned with Paris obligations a country's actions should be consistent with holding warming to 1.5°C. Therefore Australia may be obligated to contribute to global efforts to slash climate pollution as well as take steps at home – for instance building new industries (e.g. green iron) and preventing new fossil fuel projects. The Federal Government has accelerated climate action in the last three years, including reaching 43% renewable power in Australia's main grid. The action must now be strengthened to meet our international obligations. The Australian Government is expected to make its decision on Australia's 2035 climate target in the coming months. The Court's judgement makes clear that a target should be as strong as possible and accompanied by plans and policies to implement that target. It can further be argued that, to comply with international law, this judgement requires Australia to both set a strong national target and take action on exported emissions to help hold global heating to 1.5°C. 3. On-going production, consumption and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could constitute wrongful acts under international law. Wrongful acts may trigger obligations to compensate other countries suffering from climate harm. The Court states that: "What constitutes a wrongful act is not the emissions in and of themselves, but actions or omissions causing significant harm to the climate system in breach of a state's international obligations." The Federal Government has argued that Australia is not responsible for the emissions from Australia's vast exports of coal and gas. The Court disagrees. Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels, therefore there is a strong case that ongoing support and expansion of Australia's export industry constitutes "significant harm to the climate system". The Court finds that individual countries can still be found responsible, even if it is hard to identify a specific share of harm they have caused. The Court notes that it is "scientifically possible to determine each State's total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions." Given Australia has consistently been one of the highest per capita polluters in the world and one of the world's most prolific fossil fuel exporters, it can also be argued that Australia's relative share of harm is significant. This will also likely be argued in respect to other countries that are major polluters and fossil fuel exporters. The Court finds that wrongful acts – which could include breaching treaty obligations or failing to regulate climate pollution – under international law could trigger repatriation obligations, including obligations to compensate other countries harmed by climate disasters. The Court also finds an obligation for countries to limit climate pollution from private actors in its jurisdiction. This appears to be a broad definition that would apply to fossil fuels production for international or domestic use. The Court's findings give the Australian government reason to consider the totality of Australia's contribution to climate harm, including our exported climate pollution. In particular, the Court's decision is pertinent to the Federal Government's review of Australia's national environment laws. Currently, when the Federal Environment Minister considers whether to approve new fossil fuel projects there is no provision in the act to consider the climate pollution from that project. Given the Court's very strong judgement, it will be difficult for the Australian government to argue that it has the "highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the [Paris] Agreement", if it does not reform the environment laws and/or take other substantive measures to prevent the expansion of Australia's fossil fuel industry. |
