It’s Giving: Power from the Streets to The Hague

Three Takeaways for the Global South and the Philippines on ICJ’s Climate Advisory

In a landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Change released by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it issued a clear-cut statement that countries must comply with their climate obligations, and failure to do so constitutes an internationally wrongful act. 

For a young Filipina climate justice activist like me, it is powerful to witness the world’s highest court finally rule on the world’s biggest crisis of our time. It sparks a timely glimmer of hope as the Philippines battles another threat from a parade of typhoons, with three storms pummeling the country within just a week. The power that the youth holds has now amplified the voices of the marginalized to hold big, rich, polluting countries accountable for this crisis. 

This historic moment did not happen on its own. It began in 2019 when a group of 27 Pacific law students launched a bold campaign that significantly pushed the evolution of the global climate justice movement. Six years of struggle were seen and heard around the world, reflected in the unanimous adoption of Resolution 77/276 and the highest number of written statements ever filed for an advisory proceeding. From the classroom to communities, the streets, and the courtroom, these young people have undertaken a colossal initiative that will shape the future of climate negotiations. 

In the wake of disappointing outcomes from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 62nd Session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SB 62) talks and the continued downplaying of climate finance and reparations at the UN’s Fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4), the ICJ’s interpretation now provides a springboard for countries in the Global South to demand that the Global North pay its long-overdue climate debt. With the Conference of the Parties (COP) 30 just a few months away, there can be no more excuses for rich countries to fail to deliver higher climate finance at scale and a fully operational loss and damage fund.

A wake-up call for the Global North 

At the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, states recognized the urgency of responding to the climate crisis. But a decade later, countries still fall short in keeping global warming to the agreed 1.5°C limit. In 2024, we saw record-breaking high temperatures that breached this limit. To date, Iran, Libya, and Yemen remain on the sidelines of the climate agreement, and have now been joined by the United States with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

But what the ICJ Advisory tells us is, even without ratifying the climate treaty, states still have legally binding obligations to prevent climate-related harms and to cooperate internationally. These obligations extend beyond the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the UNFCCC, but also encompass customary international laws such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention to Combat Desertification, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that must be applied coherently. The duty to cooperate in good faith is the strongest legal weapon we have; countries can no longer justify not being signatories to the climate agreements as a means to dodge responsibility for climate inaction. 

The ICJ also recognized that, given the risks and dangers posed by climate change, States must act with due diligence and utilize all available means to implement preemptive measures. This will ensure that countries prevent significant harm to the climate system and the environment following the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. It provides a stronger narrative, emphasizing the need for a higher degree of vigilance and precaution, thereby eliminating the usual tick-box exercise in complying with environmental and social standards and safeguards. 

Transforming the Global South from the margins to the center and beyond

While the advisory opinion is not legally binding in itself, it serves as a significant platform to shift the Global South from the margins of climate vulnerability to the center of legal, moral, and political action. For countries on the frontlines of the climate crisis, it opens the door to accountability and reparations, strengthening cases to push governments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, regulate polluting businesses, cooperate with other countries, and provide reparations to those hardest hit.

The Global South remains a persistent hotspot for dirty and harmful projects, enabled not only by national government policies but also influenced by multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The billions of dollars channeled into fossil fuel infrastructure and the accumulation of loans, purportedly in the guise of climate resilience, have trapped the Global South in a crisis of climate, debt, and a weak economy.  The ICJ opinion strengthens calls to end this hypocrisy and hold them accountable. 

The elephant in the room has been addressed. Fossil fuels have long been avoided in other formal texts in climate discussions, but the ICJ reiterated that governments must take appropriate action to end fossil fuel production and consumption, and stop the business-as-usual practice of granting operating licenses, incentives, and subsidies to fossil fuel projects. Negligence in fulfilling these obligations is no longer merely an irresponsible act but a criminal act, and perpetrators will be deemed climate criminals. 

What makes this ruling even more significant is its recognition of the cumulative nature of the climate impacts. It acknowledges that while climate change worsens over time due to emissions across multiple countries, science tells us that it is possible to determine each state’s historical and current contribution to climate change. Crucially, the ICJ clarified that it is not the emissions alone that constitute a violation, but the acts or omissions that cause such harm in breach of a country’s international obligations. The legal consequences require a country to cease and desist from committing wrongful acts in the future and to provide full reparation, including restitution, compensation, and satisfaction. 

The Philippines has suffered too long; now it’s time to take the lead, not just survive

My country has long been ranked among the most climate-vulnerable countries globally. This is not just something I read in a report, but something I live through and continue to experience every day. Just recently, sixteen out of seventeen barangays in my hometown, Olongapo City, have been submerged in floodwaters due to a string of three typhoons. The city went into full emergency response mode, forcing hundreds of families to evacuate.

Just a few hours from Olongapo is a 1,019-megawatt  coal-fired power plant in Masinloc. It continues to operate and is expanding despite the implementation of a coal moratorium. Even as the Philippines pledges climate commitments, projects like Masinloc continue to be supported and subsidized, exposing our lopsided policy and inadequate political will. Communities living near the plant continue to bear the brunt of its impacts, while the climate crisis continues to batter our province year after year. 

It is time for the Philippines to lead and push our leaders to walk the talk, to move against new coal, gas, and fossil fuel projects, and align our policies with current international laws. Our position as a host to the board of the loss and damage fund must serve as a reminder to the rich, polluting countries of our suffering,  where we can now demand that they provide unconditional and grant-based support to Global South countries like the Philippines. We cannot champion climate action on the world stage while remaining complicit in the expansion of fossil fuels at home.  The Philippines must rise from its perpetual victim status and demand climate justice in order to survive and keep its dignity.

These climate negotiations have been going on for decades longer than I have been alive. But what struck me the most in the ICJ’s opinion was its firm reminder to governments that their actions and inactions will shape the lives of people and the planet for generations. Your legacy and protection of our future will not be measured by your words but by how you respond to these calls.  Ahead of the Belem Conference, we demand that countries act to completely phase out fossil fuels, deliver full, fast, and fair climate finance, and provide a direct, accessible, and equitable loss and damage fund. 

More than a victory, the ICJ opinion is a warning that the era of impunity is coming to an end. Polluters will pay and face accountability, as international law will no longer turn a blind eye to their actions. 

---

Ellenor Joyce G. Bartolome is a youth climate justice activist and the Senior Executive Officer for Policy, Campaigns, and Communications of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ).