On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion at the request of the UN General Assembly – driven by small island States such as Antigua and Barbuda, Vanuatu, and the Maldives – declaring unequivocally that all nations “have a duty to prevent environmental harm” by limiting greenhouse‑gas emissions.

The Court declared that existing treaties – from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to the Paris Agreement – require science‑based mitigation targets, robust environmental impact assessments, adaptation measures, and financial and technological cooperation with vulnerable countries. It recognized a stable climate as foundational to human rights. It held that failure to comply constitutes an “internationally wrongful act,” triggering obligations to cease, guarantee non‑repetition, and provide reparations for harm.

Although advisory, this opinion is already being hailed as a turning point for climate accountability and is expected to shape future environmental litigation worldwide. Experts further emphasize that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is now enshrined as a human right, meaning that inaction may breach international law.

The ruling also clarifies that States can now bring claims against one another for climate‑related loss and damage, paving the way, in principle, for litigation over historic emissions. Yet, as the ICJ warned, untangling which country caused what percentage of warming will be legally complex.

The ICJ opinion went further, affirming that affected States – such as the Marshall Islands, which estimates a $9 billion adaptation shortfall – have a right to seek compensation for destroyed infrastructure and forced relocation. However, each claim will demand case‑by‑case proof of causation.

The Court opined even further, holding that States remain responsible for the climate impacts of companies operating under their jurisdiction and that subsidizing fossil‑fuel industries or approving new oil and gas licenses may itself breach environmental obligations.

Yet on the very same day of the issuance of the ICJ Opinion, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a draft rule to rescind its 2009 “endangerment finding,” the legal linchpin for nearly all federal limits on vehicle and power‑plant emissions under the Clean Air Act.

This rollback threatens to reverse years of progress by stripping away the EPA’s authority. Since 1850, the United States has produced 20.3 percent of cumulative global CO₂ emissions – a share eclipsing any other country – and although U.S. emissions peaked in 2007 and fell by just over 3 percent by 2022, those modest gains are now at risk.

Meanwhile, the consequences of unchecked emissions are already painfully visible on American soil. In September 2022, Hurricane Ian devastated Florida and the Carolinas, killing over 100 people and inflicting nearly $60 billion in insured damages. Just this July, record‑breaking flash floods in Central Texas claimed 136 lives – well above the 30‑year average – and initially left hundreds missing amid the deluge.

Meanwhile, an unprecedented summer of heat and drought has fuelled “hundreds of wildfires” across California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Canada, blanketing entire regions in smoke. These events illustrate that rescinding the “endangerment finding” will harm American communities as surely as it imperils small states.

Because the ICJ’s advisory opinion has no binding enforcement, small island States must now press for an immediate debate in the UN General Assembly (UNGA) under Resolution 77/276. A public plenary discussion will reveal which governments stand for “saving nations from extinction” and which prioritize short‑term economic gains over planetary survival. Such revelations will help to galvanize citizen action to protest climate change within countries and globally.

It is worth remembering how the ICJ case began: In 2019, a group of Pacific law students conceived the idea at their university. They secured the UNGA referral to the ICJ with backing from Vanuatu, Antigua and Barbuda, the Maldives, and a team of leading international lawyers. Their initiative, born in small states at the front line of battle with the effects of climate change, reminds us that legal innovation often springs from those bearing the brunt of climate harm.

At the same time, island States cannot afford to wait for international action. They must strengthen domestic resilience through drought‑resistant agriculture and advance early‑warning systems, especially since the Adaptation Gap Report 2023 finds that developing countries face a $194–366 billion annual shortfall in adaptation finance. They should also join the tide of strategic climate litigation: with nearly 3,000 cases filed in over 60 countries, a unified suit by affected States against the major “Carbon Majors” could compel fossil‑fuel companies to fund adaptation and cut emissions.

This calls for a public-private partnership between governments and the private sector in victim states to bring such cases to Courts whose judgements are binding – the Caribbean Court of Justice may be one such Court. As the Center for International Environmental Law warns in its publication, “A Defining Moment for Climate Justice,” states should immediately seize domestic implementation opportunities and strengthen enforcement mechanisms to hold governments and corporations accountable.

Finally, small island nations must forge alliances with climate‑concerned members of the OECD and G20 to resist the members of these groups who are intent on denying the existence and effects of climate change. They must use their combined voices in international fora to translate moral imperatives into enforceable commitments. The ICJ has provided moral and legal clarity. However, only the collective resolve of victim states – through public ventilation in regional and international institutions, robust adaptation plans, strategic litigation, and strong alliances- will determine whether the ICJ guidance translates into tangible protection.

Together, these strategies can help victim States strengthen their resilience, protect communities, and preserve lands in the face of accelerating climate threats. This work is immediate; the champagne must wait.

(The author is the Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda to the United States and the OAS, and Dean of the OAS Ambassadors accredited to the OAS. Responses and previous commentaries:[www.sirronaldsanders.com](http://www.sirronaldsanders.com/)