In recent years, a clear trend has emerged in international case law: leading international courts are increasingly stating directly that states bear legal responsibility for the consequences of climate change. For a long time, the climate crisis was seen mainly as a matter for politics and diplomacy. Today, however, court decisions show a real shift. Climate protection is more and more treated as a core duty of states under international law.
The growing practice of international courts shows that climate security is becoming a precondition for basic human rights, including the right to life, health, housing, and decent living conditions. From this perspective, government inaction in the face of climate threats is no longer just a political failure. It can be seen as a violation of international legal obligations, with real legal consequences.
One of the most important developments in recent years was the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in July 2025. For the first time in its history, the UN’s highest court clearly stated that states have a duty to prevent harm to the climate system, and that failure to do so may amount to a breach of international law.
The ICJ described climate change as an “existential threat of planetary scale”, requiring urgent and effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect vulnerable communities. A clean, healthy, and sustainable environment was recognized as a fundamental human right, without which the rights to life, health, housing, and adequate food cannot be fully realized. In other words, climate security was recognized as a basic condition for the protection of human rights.
Crucially, the Court confirmed that these obligations apply to all states, regardless of whether they are parties to specific climate agreements. No country is exempt from responsibility for its contribution to global warming.
Even before the ICJ’s opinion, a similar legal approach had begun to take shape in specialized international courts. In 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), responding to a request from a group of small island states, issued an advisory opinion stating for the first time that greenhouse gases qualify as pollution that causes harm to the marine environment.
The Tribunal concluded that states party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea are required to take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control such emissions. This confirmed that climate obligations also exist under the law of the sea. Oceans and the atmosphere were treated as a single, interconnected space that requires protection.
Climate issues have also advanced in the practice of regional human rights courts. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its first-ever judgment on the merits of a climate case, recognizing a direct link between state climate policy and the protection of fundamental human rights.
The Court examined three cases and found that weak climate policies can violate basic rights. In the case brought by an association of elderly women from Switzerland (KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland), the Grand Chamber ruled that Switzerland’s insufficient measures to reduce emissions and adapt to extreme heat violated the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life. The Court pointed to the increased risk posed by deadly heatwaves.
This ruling became a landmark precedent for all 46 member states of the Council of Europe. For the first time, an international human rights court explicitly stated that the climate crisis threatens the enjoyment of human rights and that states are obliged to take real and adequate measures to address it, including fulfilling their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
At the same time, the Court declared two other climate cases inadmissible on procedural grounds: one brought by a French politician (Carême v. France) and another by a group of Portuguese young people (Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others). Even so, the overall message of the case law remained very clear.
In July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, responding to requests from the governments of Colombia and Chile, issued an advisory opinion explicitly confirming the human right to a stable and safe climate. The Court required states to take urgent and effective action to protect both present and future generations from climate catastrophe.
The Court stressed that states have legal duties not only to control emissions from public authorities, but also from private companies. It emphasized that major emitters carry special responsibility for the climate risks created by their activities. Sectors identified as particularly harmful included fossil fuel extraction and transport, cement production, and agribusiness.
The Inter-American Court called on states to impose stricter environmental standards on these industries, suspend harmful activities in case of violations, and seek compensation for climate damage. It also urged states to adopt national laws that allow transnational corporations to be held liable for emissions caused by their subsidiaries. This opinion effectively became a “roadmap” for climate action in the Americas and gained strong political weight.
In the Eurasian region, there is no specialized human rights court, and existing courts mainly deal with economic matters. The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) has jurisdiction over disputes related to EAEU law, but its case law contains no cases where climate change was treated as an independent issue or as a breach of state obligations. Similarly, since its creation in 1992, the Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) has not considered cases directly related to climate issues.
The absence of such cases reflects the early stage of climate jurisprudence in the region. At the same time, global trends show a steady rise in climate-related litigation. Over time, these developments may also influence Eurasian institutions. Experts in EAEU countries are already discussing ideas such as expanding the jurisdiction of the EAEU Court or creating special mechanisms to deal with environmental disputes.
The recognition by international courts of state responsibility for climate harm has far-reaching consequences. First, pressure on governments is growing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify inaction by pointing to the absence of clear legal rules. International courts are reinforcing the idea that developed countries, given their greater contribution to historical emissions, bear greater responsibility for reducing emissions and supporting vulnerable states.
Second, this responsibility inevitably extends to business. If states are required to comply with strict climate rules, they will impose tougher standards on companies within their jurisdiction. For businesses, this means that climate costs are becoming part of economic reality, and climate litigation is turning into a material financial risk already taken into account by investors and insurers.
In this context, responsible business conduct becomes a key factor of competitiveness. Companies that shift early to low-carbon technologies, reduce their carbon footprint, and disclose climate risks are in a stronger position. By contrast, companies that ignore environmental standards risk facing not only national regulation, but also costly lawsuits and compensation claims.
Climate justice is rapidly moving beyond the language of environmental activism and becoming a real principle of international law, backed by the authority of international courts. In this new legal reality, compliance with climate obligations is no longer a matter of goodwill. It is a legal norm that both states and businesses must take seriously.
Indira Beisekeeva, independent expert, specifically for www.economyKZ.org
