The World Court finally opens the door to 'climate reparations'

Lien Vandamme is Senior Campaigner and Joie Chowdhury is Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

This week, the world’s highest court - the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - affirmed unanimously: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and reparation.

This historic step offers a vital lifeline to frontline communities and nations facing catastrophic losses of life and livelihood, disappearing coastlines and eroding cultures.

The court made clear that countries have binding legal duties in relation to climate change and that the failure to meet these duties and take appropriate measures - including tackling fossil fuel production, consumption and subsidies - carry legal consequences.

Such consequences include halting climate-destructive conduct and providing full climate reparations. Legal responsibility can no longer be sidestepped for political convenience or by citing treaty loopholes: the harm is real and the law is clear.

This ruling stems from a historic request by the United Nations General Assembly, led by Pacific Island students and championed by the government of Vanuatu, asking the court to clarify states’ legal obligations in the face of the climate crisis and, importantly, what consequences they face for the harm they caused.

The global participation in the process was unprecedented. More than 100 countries and institutions submitted arguments, many addressing the long-taboo subject of climate reparations: the obligations of wealthy countries and corporations with high historic and current emissions to compensate those suffering devastating losses - often with the least responsibility for causing the crisis.

For decades, much of the world has treated climate reparations as too controversial to discuss, too complex to address. But rising sea levels, deadly heatwaves and disappearing ecosystems have turned silence into complicity. The question of responsibility can no longer be ignored.

Wealthy nations have long blocked or deflected calls for climate reparations, particularly within the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement.

When asked to argue before the World Court, many of these nations argued that existing climate treaties shield them from liability for climate harm. Some claimed that their minimal contributions to the bare crumbs that are international climate finance were enough to absolve them of legal responsibilities. It was a familiar attempt to dodge responsibility through technicalities and loopholes.

But the vast majority of participating delegations rejected that logic, powerfully and persuasively. Countries like Vanuatu, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Antigua and Barbuda cited longstanding principles of international law that predate and transcend UN climate agreements, and make clear that states have obligations to prevent, mitigate and remedy foreseeable harm.

The court has now come in strong support for these arguments, affirming that countries can be held liable for breaking their obligations under climate change agreements and for causing climate-related harm.

Crucially, the court clarified that climate reparations go beyond money and compensation. They extend to restitution - restoring the situation to what it was before the violation of international law - and satisfaction, which may include formal apologies, public acknowledgments or public education about climate change.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court for Human Rights took a major step by affirming that even if warming is limited to 1.5C - a threshold the world is increasingly likely to breach - the climate crisis violates human rights.

It concluded that states are obligated to provide reparations for harms already caused. Now, the ICJ has followed suit, affirming that climate-destructive conduct may violate international law and trigger legal consequences.

By rejecting the arguments of major emitters and upholding the rights of climate-vulnerable communities, the court has shattered a decades-old taboo. Reparations are no longer a fringe demand, they are a legal necessity.

The momentum is undeniable: the courts have spoken and governments must act. They may have ignored the rising calls for reparations coming from the frontlines and the streets. They cannot ignore the world’s highest court.

Reparations are not only possible but are required by law. We are entering a new era of climate accountability.