Evaluating the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Climate Change: Foundations and Implementation Challenges of Climate Justice in Developing States

Imagine the Earth as a giant, shared house where everyone lives together. For a long time, the people who built the house and used the most firewood (the industrialized nations) have been filling the air with smoke, while the people who built the house later or used very little wood (the developing nations) are the ones getting choked by the fumes. This isn't just a messy room; it's a life-or-death situation. To fix this, the world has been trying to write a "House Rules" book, known as international law. Two big ideas have been the foundation of these rules: the "No Harm" rule (you can't mess up your neighbor's side of the house) and "Common but Differentiated Responsibilities" (CBDR), which is a fancy way of saying, "We all have to help clean up, but those who made the biggest mess have to do more work and pay more for the supplies."

For years, these rules were mostly polite suggestions—like a sticky note on the fridge that everyone agreed to read but no one was forced to follow. But recently, the world's highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), decided to weigh in. They issued a massive "Advisory Opinion" in July 2025. Think of this opinion not as a police officer handing out a ticket (which they can't do), but as a super-smart referee blowing a whistle and shouting, "Hey! According to the rules of the game, you should stop polluting, and if you don't, you are failing a moral and legal standard." This paper by Mohammad Eyadat looks closely at that referee's call to see if it actually changes the game or if it's just a loud noise that gets ignored.

The Paper's Big Story

Mohammad Eyadat's paper is like a detective story that investigates this new 2025 court ruling. The main finding is that the court did something huge: it finally declared that protecting the climate isn't just a "nice thing to do" or a political choice; it is a normative legal duty that states are expected to follow. The paper argues that the court successfully linked the health of the planet directly to human rights. It's as if the court said, "You can't claim to protect a person's right to life if you let the air they breathe become toxic." This means that countries are now expected to be held responsible for not doing enough to stop climate change, and this is a major shift from the old days when climate action was just a voluntary promise. However, the paper is careful to note that while the opinion creates a strong legal expectation, it is not a binding law that automatically forces compliance without political will.

The paper highlights that this ruling is a massive win for developing countries, like Jordan. For a long time, these nations felt like they were being asked to pay for a mess they didn't make. The court's opinion reinforces the idea that the countries who caused the most pollution in the past have a special, heavier legal duty to fix it and pay for the damage. It gives these countries a powerful new weapon in their legal toolbox to demand money, technology, and help from the richer nations.

However, the paper also points out some serious cracks in the armor. While the court said, "You must do this," it didn't say exactly how to do it or what happens if you don't. The paper notes that the ruling is "non-binding," which is a legal way of saying, "You really, really should listen to this, but we can't arrest you if you don't." It's like a parent telling a teenager, "You must clean your room," without having a way to actually make them do it if they refuse. The paper argues that without a strict enforcement system or a clear timeline, some countries might just ignore the advice.

Furthermore, the paper finds that the court missed a few crucial parts of the puzzle. It didn't explicitly talk about "social justice" (making sure the poorest people aren't left behind) or "intergenerational justice" (protecting the rights of people who haven't been born yet). The court focused on the big legal rules but stayed quiet on the deep, unfair social issues that make climate change so hard to solve. The author suggests that while the court was careful to avoid getting into political fights, this caution might have made the ruling less powerful than it could have been.

What the Paper Says We Can't Do Yet

The paper is very clear about what this ruling doesn't do. It explicitly rules out the idea that this opinion is a magic wand that will instantly fix the climate. It is not a law that automatically forces governments to change their policies overnight. The paper argues that the ruling does not solve the problem of "sovereignty," which is the right of a country to make its own decisions. If a country wants to keep burning coal to grow its economy, the court's opinion doesn't have a direct mechanism to stop them, other than shaming them and letting other countries sue them.

The paper also argues against the idea that this is a "solved problem." It suggests that while the legal foundation is stronger, the actual work of building a fair system is just beginning. The paper warns that without strong political will from governments and new laws in every country, the court's opinion might just sit on a shelf as a piece of paper. It emphasizes that the ruling is a "normative" shift—meaning it changes what we think is right and wrong—but it hasn't yet built the "enforcement machine" needed to make sure everyone follows the rules.

The Bottom Line

In the end, this paper tells us that the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion is a giant step forward, but not the final destination. It's like the court handed the world a very strong, very clear map showing the right path to climate justice, but it didn't give us the car to drive on that road. The paper suggests that for this map to be useful, developing countries need to rewrite their own local laws to match the new rules, train their judges to understand these complex issues, and use new technology to track pollution. It's a hopeful story about a new legal era, but one that comes with a big warning: the law is only as strong as the people who decide to follow it.