Pakistan has welcomed the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of states in terms of climate change and called it a confirmation of the most important international legal responsibility for tackling the global climate crisis.
The ICJ said the countries must tackle the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change by cooperating in limiting emissions as it gave an opinion to determine future environmental cravings. The countries’ failure to fulfill their climate could in specific cases lead other states affected by climate change to litigation.
In a statement published on Thursday, Pakistan’s government said the statement, “emphasizes the urgent global challenge that climate change sets and confirms critical legal obligations under international law.”
The Read Attorney for Pakistan, Mansoor Usman Awan, had delivered oral submissions before ICJ on April 15, 2025, and emphasized the need to recognize the duty of states to prevent significant environmental damage as “a commitment that exceeds boundaries and requires strict diligence from any state.”
Islamabad also presented two detailed written statements to the court on March 21 and August 9, 2024, which strengthens its position on the responsibilities of the states under the International Environmental Act.
ICJ has confirmed several key positions made by Pakistan in his advisory opinion on states’ legal responsibilities regarding climate change, the government said.
Read: The world’s top court paves the way for climate repairs
The court confirmed that the long-standing usual international principle of law of preventing significant environmental damage applies explicitly to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. The order reinforces that states are obliged to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing significant cross -border environmental damage.
ICJ confirmed that specialized climate agreements – such as the UN FRAME Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement – do not override the broader obligation to prevention under usual international law.
This decision supports Pakistan’s attitude that rejected the idea that these treaties represent LEX specialis that is able to limit or displace the general environmental tasks that all states must maintain.
ICJ has acknowledged that states have extraterratory human rights obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) when activities within their limits cause harm beyond them, including climate -related effects.
The ruling is in accordance with Islamabad’s claim that states bear the responsibility for human rights violations that are the result of actions or deficiencies leading to significant environmental damage affecting people in other countries.
“As one of the countries that is most significantly influenced by climate -induced events,” says the statement, “Pakistan urges all nations to carefully comply with their legal obligations and strengthen global collaboration efforts to mitigate climate change and support adaptation measures.”
In addition, ICJ’s opinion was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small islands and low -lying states that had asked the court to clarify the responsibilities of the states.
Read more: ‘Govt prepared to tackle climate impact’
This opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December at ICJ, as the judges were asked by the UN General Assembly to consider two questions: What are the obligations of the countries under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; And what are the legal consequences for countries that damage the climate system?
The wealthy countries in the global north told the judges that existing climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement in 2015, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Development of nations and small Eastern states at the greatest risk of rising sea level argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to limit emissions and of the largest broadcasts of climate -heating greenhouse gases to provide financial support.
They had sought clarification from the court after the failure of the Paris Agreement in 2015 to limit the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
At the end of last year, in the “Emissions Gap Report”, which takes status over the countries’ promises to tackle climate change compared to what is needed, the UN said the current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 f) over pre-industrial levels with 2100.
As campaigns try to keep businesses and governments to account, climate-related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed in nearly 60 countries, according to June from London’s Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment.
