Pakistan has welcomed the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (CIJ) on the legal obligations of states with respect to climate change, qualifying it as a reaffirmation of key international legal responsibilities to address the global climatic crisis.
ICJ said countries must address the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change by cooperating to stop emissions, since it delivered an established opinion to determine future environmental litigation. The failure on the part of the countries to fulfill their climatic obligations could, in specific cases, take other states affected by climate change to litigate.
In a statement published on Thursday, the Pakistan government said that the opinion “underlines the urgent global challenge raised by climate change and reaffirms critical legal obligations according to international law.”
Pakistan Attorney General, Mansoor Usman Awan, had delivered oral presentations before ICJ on April 15, 2025, emphasizing the need to recognize the duty of states to avoid significant environmental damage as “an obligation that transcends borders and requires a strict diligence of each state.”
Islamabad also filed two detailed written statements to the Court on March 21 and August 9, 2024, reinforcing its position on the responsibilities of the states under international environmental law.
ICJ has affirmed several key positions advanced by Pakistan in his advisory opinion on the legal responsibilities of states regarding climate change, said the government.
Read: The main court of the world paid the form of climatic repairs
The Court confirmed that the principle of consuetudinal law of long dates to prevent significant environmental damage is explicitly applied to the emissions of greenhouse gases induced by humans. The ruling reinforces that states are obliged to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing significant cross -border environmental damage.
The ICJ affirmed that the specialized climatic agreements, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (CMNUCC) and the Paris Agreement, do not cancel the broader obligation of prevention under customary international law.
This ruling supports Pakistan’s position, which rejected the idea that these treaties represent specialis Lex capable of limiting or displacing the general environmental duties that all states must maintain.
ICJ has acknowledged that states have extraterritorial human rights obligations under the International Civil and Political Rights Pact (ICCPR) when activities within their borders cause damage beyond them, including climate -related impacts.
The ruling is aligned with the presentation of Islamabad that states have the responsibility for human rights violations as a result of actions or omissions that lead to significant environmental damage that affect people in other countries.
“As one of the countries most affected by the events induced by the weather,” said the statement, “Pakistan urges all nations to rigorously fulfill their legal obligations and strengthen the efforts of global collaboration to mitigate climate change and support adaptation measures.”
In addition, the opinion of the ICJ was immediately received by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for the small island and the lower states that had asked the court to clarify the responsibilities of the states.
Read more: ‘Government prepared to address the climate impact’
This opinion follows two weeks of hearings last December in the CIJ when the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider two questions: what are the obligations of the countries under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gases emissions; And what are the legal consequences for countries that damage the climate system?
The rich countries of the Global North told judges that existing climatic treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Developing nations and small island states with greater risk of the increase in sea level defended stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and largest emitters of greenhouse gases for climate warming to provide financial aid.
They had sought clarifications of the court after the failure so far of the 2015 Paris Agreement to stop the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
At the end of last year, in the “emission gap report”, which takes a balance of the promises of the countries to address climate change compared to what is necessary, the UN said that current climatic policies will result in a global warming of more than 3 c (5.4 f) above the preindustrial levels for 2100.
As activists seek to hold companies and governments, climate -related litigation have intensified, with almost 3,000 cases presented in almost 60 countries, according to June figures of the Grantham Research Institute in London on climate change and the environment.
